Kiserlovski01 wrote:
And now all of a sudden all Brits are dumb fools while only a small majority voted for the Brexit?
I think you need to understand what a majority means. There's no real scale to an absolute term, a majority is a majority regardless of "level" So to generalise all Brits as dumb fools, whilst obviously not accurate, is a justifyable generalisation as it is supported by statistics.
Applied to the weapons topic: do some guys really believe all Americans carry weapons? I don't doubt the fact a lot of American want to stay away from guns as much as they can. It's not likely I will ever live in the USA, but yes, I'd try to keep my family away from guns too.
The USA has between 270 and 310 million guns, which roughly comes to 101 guns per capita (per 100 people). So again statistically speaking it is fair to say all Americans have a gun.
And now to counter my own point, only about 31% of households have a gun. Less than 1/3, so generalising to "all Americans have a gun" is wrong under that statistic. (In 1977 it was 50% of households with a gun at peak).
Not trying to be picky but thos couple of points instantly leapt out at me. Generalization is wrong of course, but check your facts before hand because sometimes a generlization is accurate and/or justified.
baseballlover312 wrote:
I'll never understand why foreigners constantly feel the need to comment about the state of affairs of another country that doesn't involve them whatsoever.
Coming from an American, that almost made me spit out my dinner. You guys are the last to talk about getting into other countries business.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that to post on an international internet forum I have to check my privilege at the door. So because my country has done stupid interventionist things I am not allowed to resent others trashing people in my country when these are clearly domestic issues that do not involve them. Is this Tumblr now? Did I take a wrong turn somewhere? Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what's on the local news in your countries.
TheManxMissile wrote:
I mean how hard would it be to take guns away from regular patrolmen and replace them with high power tasers?
Is everyone going to ignore the fact that the shooting that just happened was AGAINST COPS! 5 cops are dead and a dozen more are injured because a militant black power group of snipers killed them. This has nothing to do with police brutality, though that is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed as well. Now if all of the police has tasers, I'm sure this would have been a much easier situation to absolve. When all the cops were dead.
Yes, tasers make perfect sense for guys doing traffic stops and such, and I think that was your point. but that was not at all related to the original point and I don't understand how every discussion reverts to that even though this situation was the exact opposite.
Paul23 wrote:
Well, I will never to go america for reasons like that. I don't want to go into a country where everyone has a gun.
That's fine, nobody's making you and you don't have to. Also, not everyone has a gun. I've never seen a gun in real life in my life except for a cop's pistol holstered.
Crommy wrote:
There's this thing called empathy. It doesn't stop at borders. Definitely didn't stop when 20 6-7 year old kids were murdered, and the US's answer was no change needed in gun laws
I don't think you need to explain the reality of Sandy Hook with me. My town is only 20 minutes from there, and we were locked down in our classrooms at school the entire day as news came in and we feared for our own safety. So talking about empathy, I think we come from a bit different perspectives there. And distance definitely does have a role.
Of course there's a thing called empathy, and I would hope and expect that people from around the world feel bad about what happened and hope for a change in these trends. But most of the posts that have been on here and elsewhere every time this discussion gets brought up do not express empathy or sympathy towards the tragedies or even call for change, but instead mindlessly criticize Americans calling us stupid and ignorant in general for the actions and decisions of a few in a country of 320,000,000 people.
I'm not even pro-gun. I don't own a gun. Nobody I know owns a gun. I live in Connecticut, the most liberal part of the country outside of the west coast, which is why Sandy Hook shocked everyone here so much. Lanza didn't even get the gun in our state! I'm just sick of everybody talking about and looking down on Americans in general because we have domestic issues that need to be sorted out. They are our issues! I'm sure most of your countries have your own as well.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
TheManxMissile wrote:
I mean how hard would it be to take guns away from regular patrolmen and replace them with high power tasers?
Is everyone going to ignore the fact that the shooting that just happened was AGAINST COPS! 5 cops are dead and a dozen more are injured because a militant black power group of snipers killed them. This has nothing to do with police brutality, though that is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed as well. Now if all of the police has tasers, I'm sure this would have been a much easier situation to absolve. When all the cops were dead.
Yes, tasers make perfect sense for guys doing traffic stops and such, and I think that was your point. but that was not at all related to the original point and I don't understand how every discussion reverts to that even though this situation was the exact opposite.[/quote]
If you read my comment fully you see i said, direct quote, "Then you can just train certain officers in firearms and have them on standby for extreme situations where lethal force can be needed." Wherein obviously the Dallas Shooting comes under extreme situtations and you can call in the firearms unit to help deal with the situation.
But by putting tasers instead of guns in regular officers hands then you can help prevent a Dallas in the first place. It was a reaction to the numerous times someone was shot needlessly. So give officers a taser and they won't shoot and kill someone wrongly, and then you won't get the retaliatory attack.
_____________
Equally if you don't like a non-American having and giving an opinion, don't read their comment. Or read it and let it go, just ignore them if you think they are uninformed or just wrong. It becomes a hot topic for comment because it makes the main news over here in Europe. If we are reading the situation wrong or our ideas are wrong, inform us correctly.
TheManxMissile wrote:
I think you need to understand what a majority means. There's no real scale to an absolute term, a majority is a majority regardless of "level" So to generalise all Brits as dumb fools, whilst obviously not accurate, is a justifyable generalisation as it is supported by statistics.
Well, by using the word small I actually meant the margin by which the 'winning camp' won, even though I suppose you already knew that . I get that a majority is a majority, but still, the smaller the difference, the less justifyable a generalization becomes, at least IMO.
The USA has between 270 and 310 million guns, which roughly comes to 101 guns per capita (per 100 people). So again statistically speaking it is fair to say all Americans have a gun.
And now to counter my own point, only about 31% of households have a gun. Less than 1/3, so generalising to "all Americans have a gun" is wrong under that statistic. (In 1977 it was 50% of households with a gun at peak).
Not trying to be picky but thos couple of points instantly leapt out at me. Generalization is wrong of course, but check your facts before hand because sometimes a generalization is accurate and/or justified.
Checking facts is maybe the biggest issue in this generalization case. If you don't, in this case you'd end up thinking everyone's just constantly pointing guns at each other no matter what city you're in. Checking the facts also doesn't help if you don't think about it. If one read the first statistiscs you mentioned, he could think: Damn, I knew I was right about the 'every American has got a gun' statement.
Statistics never tell everything. Only if you check all or at least enough different statistics regarding the same topic in order to know how to interpret them, you can form an accurate opinion. But how many people do that? Obviously I'm talking about these extreme generalizers (is that even a word? ) now, who act and talk without thinking a split second.
Finally, I did not mean to show generalization as a bad thing, even though I once again suppose you'd understood that. I'm just saying it can be a dangerous thing when 'used' wrongfully, because a lot of generalizations are both unjustifiable and incorrect.
I live in southern Texas. I'd rate gun ownership/usage where I live at around 65-75 percent of households. It's part of the culture of the area. Lots of boys (me included) get shotguns/hunting rifles for 13th bday. I'm honestly pretty neutral when it comes to gun control. Proposed laws would ban semi-auto weapons, of which I own none. My personal opinion is that it should be a state-by-state issue. If a liberal area like where BBL lives wants to ban pistols and ARs that's their decision. It probably won't happen at a federal level anytime soon so I think the states should decide instead.
Dusen wrote:
[quote]baseballlover312 wrote:
I'll never understand why foreigners constantly feel the need to comment about the state of affairs of another country that doesn't involve them whatsoever.
Coming from an American, that almost made me spit out my dinner. You guys are the last to talk about getting into other countries business.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that to post on an international internet forum I have to check my privilege at the door. So because my country has done stupid interventionist things I am not allowed to resent others trashing people in my country when these are clearly domestic issues that do not involve them. Is this Tumblr now? Did I take a wrong turn somewhere? Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what's on the local news in your countries.
Yet you just had to comment on Spain's rules on sexual consent further back in this thread
kumazan wrote:
In Spain the age of consent is 13, but if it's considered that there's been some kind of abuse, like the use of deceit or something like that, you could still be charged as long as the other person is under 16.
That sounds right. Bunch of 7th graders hooking up.
Dusen wrote:
[quote]baseballlover312 wrote:
I'll never understand why foreigners constantly feel the need to comment about the state of affairs of another country that doesn't involve them whatsoever.
Coming from an American, that almost made me spit out my dinner. You guys are the last to talk about getting into other countries business.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that to post on an international internet forum I have to check my privilege at the door. So because my country has done stupid interventionist things I am not allowed to resent others trashing people in my country when these are clearly domestic issues that do not involve them. Is this Tumblr now? Did I take a wrong turn somewhere? Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what's on the local news in your countries.
Yet you just had to comment on Spain's rules on sexual consent further back in this thread
kumazan wrote:
In Spain the age of consent is 13, but if it's considered that there's been some kind of abuse, like the use of deceit or something like that, you could still be charged as long as the other person is under 16.
That sounds right. Bunch of 7th graders hooking up.
Very timely source there. I was literally 13 years old when that was made and so not only was I just grosses out by the thought of other kids my age having sex, but I was too young to have formed my own cognitive political and analytical reasoning. After 3 years I definitely have, at least to some extent.
But even then the topic had already been brought up. I didn't make a post saying "Oh man I found out the age of consent in Spain is really low, better make a post about it and how disgusting it is." I replied to a conversation that was already well underway. That is totally different than creating a conversation out of nothing.
TheManxMissile wrote:
But by putting tasers instead of guns in regular officers hands then you can help prevent a Dallas in the first place. It was a reaction to the numerous times someone was shot needlessly. So give officers a taser and they won't shoot and kill someone wrongly, and then you won't get the retaliatory attack.
You know, a swat team doesn't just instantaneously show up to an event. That just gives more time to pick them off as a sniper.
But I think what's lost here is that with the way American media and culture currently is it doesn't matter if it's a taser or a gun. If a video of a kid getting tasered by a cop went viral, the same exact riots and plots would happen. It's the attitude everyone has, not the act in itself.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
TheManxMissile wrote:
But by putting tasers instead of guns in regular officers hands then you can help prevent a Dallas in the first place. It was a reaction to the numerous times someone was shot needlessly. So give officers a taser and they won't shoot and kill someone wrongly, and then you won't get the retaliatory attack.
You know, a swat team doesn't just instantaneously show up to an event. That just gives more time to pick them off as a sniper.
But I think what's lost here is that with the way American media and culture currently is it doesn't matter if it's a taser or a gun. If a video of a kid getting tasered by a cop went viral, the same exact riots and plots would happen. It's the attitude everyone has, not the act in itself.
I know a SWAT team doesn't and that in this specific Dallas incident regular officers having guns did actually help. What i'm trying to do/say is an idea to help prevent a situation occuring in the future, rather than a reaction to an event that has occured already.
As for the wider issues i didn't comment on them because, and here's the fun part, i'm not American and i don't live in America. I don't know enough of the real situation to pass significant comment on the wider racial/anger/whatever social status of the States. Pretty much what you were saying earlier
TheManxMissile wrote:
But by putting tasers instead of guns in regular officers hands then you can help prevent a Dallas in the first place. It was a reaction to the numerous times someone was shot needlessly. So give officers a taser and they won't shoot and kill someone wrongly, and then you won't get the retaliatory attack.
You know, a swat team doesn't just instantaneously show up to an event. That just gives more time to pick them off as a sniper.
But I think what's lost here is that with the way American media and culture currently is it doesn't matter if it's a taser or a gun. If a video of a kid getting tasered by a cop went viral, the same exact riots and plots would happen. It's the attitude everyone has, not the act in itself.
I know a SWAT team doesn't and that in this specific Dallas incident regular officers having guns did actually help. What i'm trying to do/say is an idea to help prevent a situation occuring in the future, rather than a reaction to an event that has occured already.
As for the wider issues i didn't comment on them because, and here's the fun part, i'm not American and i don't live in America. I don't know enough of the real situation to pass significant comment on the wider racial/anger/whatever social status of the States. Pretty much what you were saying earlier
Fair enough. Sorry if I've been hostile today I haven't been in a great mood if you could tell.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
TheManxMissile wrote:
But by putting tasers instead of guns in regular officers hands then you can help prevent a Dallas in the first place. It was a reaction to the numerous times someone was shot needlessly. So give officers a taser and they won't shoot and kill someone wrongly, and then you won't get the retaliatory attack.
You know, a swat team doesn't just instantaneously show up to an event. That just gives more time to pick them off as a sniper.
But I think what's lost here is that with the way American media and culture currently is it doesn't matter if it's a taser or a gun. If a video of a kid getting tasered by a cop went viral, the same exact riots and plots would happen. It's the attitude everyone has, not the act in itself.
I know a SWAT team doesn't and that in this specific Dallas incident regular officers having guns did actually help. What i'm trying to do/say is an idea to help prevent a situation occuring in the future, rather than a reaction to an event that has occured already.
As for the wider issues i didn't comment on them because, and here's the fun part, i'm not American and i don't live in America. I don't know enough of the real situation to pass significant comment on the wider racial/anger/whatever social status of the States. Pretty much what you were saying earlier
Fair enough. Sorry if I've been hostile today I haven't been in a great mood if you could tell.
Dusen wrote:
[quote]baseballlover312 wrote:
I'll never understand why foreigners constantly feel the need to comment about the state of affairs of another country that doesn't involve them whatsoever.
Coming from an American, that almost made me spit out my dinner. You guys are the last to talk about getting into other countries business.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that to post on an international internet forum I have to check my privilege at the door. So because my country has done stupid interventionist things I am not allowed to resent others trashing people in my country when these are clearly domestic issues that do not involve them. Is this Tumblr now? Did I take a wrong turn somewhere? Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what's on the local news in your countries.
Yet you just had to comment on Spain's rules on sexual consent further back in this thread
kumazan wrote:
In Spain the age of consent is 13, but if it's considered that there's been some kind of abuse, like the use of deceit or something like that, you could still be charged as long as the other person is under 16.
That sounds right. Bunch of 7th graders hooking up.
Very timely source there. I was literally 13 years old when that was made and so not only was I just grosses out by the thought of other kids my age having sex, but I was too young to have formed my own cognitive political and analytical reasoning. After 3 years I definitely have, at least to some extent.
But even then the topic had already been brought up. I didn't make a post saying "Oh man I found out the age of consent in Spain is really low, better make a post about it and how disgusting it is." I replied to a conversation that was already well underway. That is totally different than creating a conversation out of nothing.
That's fair enough
I just couldn't help myself
Anyway regarding the Dallas tragedy, i'll like to write how i see things on some of the key issues.
Gun Law
Coming from Denmark, who has one of the hardest gun laws in the world, I personally think that less guns would prevent a lot of deaths, and there is a good amount of statistic to back that claim up. But at the same time, I understand that a lot of Americans have a special relationship with their 2nd amendment. But i think that you could make some changes, that would make the country safer overall.
Obama has proposed that alle people who are on the Terror watchlist is blocked from buying a gun. I personally think that is a "no brainer", but still, it's not being voted trough.
The guy that shot all these cops in Dallas probably wouldn't have been effected by these restrictions, but the guy who shot all those gay people would.
Maybe also a ban on some of the heavier weapons, there really is no need for a civilian to be running around with a rifle that can shot 30 bullets in less than a minute(no i don't have the actual numbers, but some of the rifles can shot a lot of bullets in a very limited time, thats for sure.)
I could write a lot of points about this, but it's late and i'm not really feeling my english atm.
Black people being discriminated against by the cops
There are two points i would like to make on this. First, I feel like that whenever a black person is shot by a white cop these days, all alarms just goes off in the black communities, before anyone really knows what actually went down. It would be healthy for all parties involved, to stay calm, and wait for all the facts to be on the table before rioting on the streets.
My second point is, that if the state did a good enough job in removing white cops, who obviously abused their power, the black communities probably wouldn't go off like they do. But it's clear that the police force still have an unknown amount of police officers, who still discriminate black people. These incidents will never end until those police officers are gone from the force.
It really is sad, and i don't know if there have been an increase of these mass shootings, hate crimes, terror attacks(small scale), or if the media is just more focused on these tragic events these years. But Obama have been spending a lot of time going on air and having to give his condolences these past few years.
I may have had a third subject i wanted to touch upon, but it's late and i'm tired, and i've forgot what it was, maybe it will come back to me tommorrow
Well that's not true about Omar, he worked for security team as an armed guard, he would had access to weapons no matter what.
As for guns, of course not mentioned by most of media is the fact that while gun ownership almost doubled in last 20 years, the homicide rate has also fallen 49%.
And this is just one part of reasons Obama and Democrats will be going absolutely nowhere. The amendment stood when there was far more violence, and it will stand now.
Alakagom wrote:
Well that's not true about Omar, he worked for security team as an armed guard, he would had access to weapons no matter what.
As for guns, of course not mentioned by most of media is the fact that while gun ownership almost doubled in last 20 years, the homicide rate has also fallen 49%.
And this is just one part of reasons Obama and Democrats will be going absolutely nowhere. The amendment stood when there was far more violence, and it will stand now.
The Australians had problems with mass shootings as well, they took action, and the graph and statistic show that, the number of deaths have fallen drasticly. If this was implemented in the US, can you honestly say that gun related deaths wouldn't fall?
Alakagom wrote:
Well that's not true about Omar, he worked for security team as an armed guard, he would had access to weapons no matter what.
As for guns, of course not mentioned by most of media is the fact that while gun ownership almost doubled in last 20 years, the homicide rate has also fallen 49%.
And this is just one part of reasons Obama and Democrats will be going absolutely nowhere. The amendment stood when there was far more violence, and it will stand now.
The Australians had problems with mass shootings as well, they took action, and the graph and statistic show that, the number of deaths have fallen drasticly. If this was implemented in the US, can you honestly say that gun related deaths wouldn't fall?
Not gonna dive too deep into this since I'm on my phone.
Chicago has some of the (if not The) toughest gun laws in the nation. Yet gun violence hasn't changed since it instituted its gun control laws. IMO trying to enforce gun control nation-wide will go just as badly if not worse than the war on drugs. Criminals will find ways to get their hands on guns one way or another. Also. Almost all mass shootings in the US in the last 20 years have occurred in "Gun Free Zones". We have a saying around here, "Best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.
Aside from that, I think the voters in each state should get to decide gun policy in their respective states.
Alakagom wrote:
Well that's not true about Omar, he worked for security team as an armed guard, he would had access to weapons no matter what.
As for guns, of course not mentioned by most of media is the fact that while gun ownership almost doubled in last 20 years, the homicide rate has also fallen 49%.
And this is just one part of reasons Obama and Democrats will be going absolutely nowhere. The amendment stood when there was far more violence, and it will stand now.
The Australians had problems with mass shootings as well, they took action, and the graph and statistic show that, the number of deaths have fallen drasticly. If this was implemented in the US, can you honestly say that gun related deaths wouldn't fall?
Unless you know how their 1996 gun law compares right now to the US model in depth, we can take no conclusions from these numbers at all. For all I know their pre-1996 model could have been completely inferior to the American model and all they did was catch up.
Australia - 0.0000098 rate
USA - 0.000034 rate
So the difference is there, albeit very small. But comparing across countries while not knowing every single detail of their specific laws seems pointless.
Unless you know how their 1996 gun law compares right now to the US model in depth, we can take no conclusions from these numbers at all. For all I know their pre-1996 model could have been completely inferior to the American model and all they did was catch up.
iirc Post 1996 laws require you to have a gun licence to buy a gun, I've never seen one living there nor do I know anybody with one, pretty much the only people who can get a gun licence are farmers and they get ones capable of shooting rabbits, no more.
Don't know more information about the laws because it's hard to research atm so I'm just running off memory.
I think the biggest issue with the Second Amendment isn't necessarily the amendment itself, but the lengths to which the far right will go to defend the arming via this amendment of the latest murderer. How can you possibly vote to allow those on the terror watchlist to access weapons? How can you possibly allow those with a history of schizophrenic incidents to access weapons?
Disclaimer- Most of my posts are me thinking aloud. And most of what I think is rubbish.
Winner of a FIFA Prediction Fair Play Award (a phrase becoming increasingly ironic) "... Because he (me) has a sound tactical mind in general..." jandal7, at 9:30 am GMT on 12th May 2016
Alakagom wrote:
Well that's not true about Omar, he worked for security team as an armed guard, he would had access to weapons no matter what.
As for guns, of course not mentioned by most of media is the fact that while gun ownership almost doubled in last 20 years, the homicide rate has also fallen 49%.
And this is just one part of reasons Obama and Democrats will be going absolutely nowhere. The amendment stood when there was far more violence, and it will stand now.
The Australians had problems with mass shootings as well, they took action, and the graph and statistic show that, the number of deaths have fallen drasticly. If this was implemented in the US, can you honestly say that gun related deaths wouldn't fall?
Not gonna dive too deep into this since I'm on my phone.
Chicago has some of the (if not The) toughest gun laws in the nation. Yet gun violence hasn't changed since it instituted its gun control laws. IMO trying to enforce gun control nation-wide will go just as badly if not worse than the war on drugs. Criminals will find ways to get their hands on guns one way or another. Also. Almost all mass shootings in the US in the last 20 years have occurred in "Gun Free Zones". We have a saying around here, "Best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.
Aside from that, I think the voters in each state should get to decide gun policy in their respective states.
Well, when they can cross into neighboring states, and buy exactly what they want to, it doesn't really matter what the state of Chicago does.
This small series made by John Oliver, is not only entertaining and funny, but it explains how Australia went from having a lot of death due to gun violence, and now have no mass shootings, and a decrease of homicides and suicides.
weirdskyfan64 wrote:
I think the biggest issue with the Second Amendment isn't necessarily the amendment itself, but the lengths to which the far right will go to defend the arming via this amendment of the latest murderer. How can you possibly vote to allow those on the terror watchlist to access weapons? How can you possibly allow those with a history of schizophrenic incidents to access weapons?
This is my problem as well. These cases are "no brainers", and should have been banned from gun ownership a long time ago.
So to generalise all Brits as dumb fools, whilst obviously not accurate, is a justifyable generalisation as it is supported by statistics.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
) now, who act and talk without thinking a split second.
