Shooting in San Bernadino
-
@IRJ said:
Then you look at places like Nazi Germany and North Korea were the people were unarmed by the government while things were good. It wasn't until after they were disarmed that things got bad.
Nazi Germany did not disarm the people. The Nazis reversed the gun restrictions that had been there. This is often misquoted to make it seem like Hitler was anti-gun to gain control of the people. Quite the opposite.
Germany had strict gun control and removed it under the Nazis. Today Germany is among the safest places on earth and also has nearly the strictest gun control. Germany is possibly the best example in modern history of gun control directly being tied to good things and loosening it to bad ones.
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
He only said that it was amazing that they were so easy to get.
Right, but guns aren't the problem, regardless.
No, but ability to get them, people being allowed to have them, encouraging people to use them, suggesting that killing is the answer to disagreements with the government are all part of it.
-
Just like bombs aren't the problem, disease isn't the problem. But dropping bombs, spreading disease, firing a gun... those are the problems.
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Is there any case where guns have been used to put in a new government of the people? Or only for dictators?
New governments, yes...New people in power, absolutely! New governments of the people, yea, not so much. One half trying to overthrow the other half just makes for a long and bloody fight... and then when that fight is over, the losers are resentful and the cycle begins again (especially over in the Middle east)...
That's the problem. Not that guns can't shake things up, they just don't shake things up with a positive outcome. The freedom to have guns increases the risk of losing all freedoms entirely.
You give up your ability to fight, and you give up everything to the governments. If you look back in history, governments don't exactly have a great track record.
That's a theory, but when has it ever held up in modern times? If you don't disarm the people, you give up your freedom to the people with the guns. Weapons, rather than votes, become the agents of government. How can you have freedom if the government exists only through the threat of death to those that oppose it?
-
Guys I am going to lock this topic BEFORE it gets out of hand. Remember while some political discussion is allowed arguing about it is not, and I see the writing on the wall. This is a topic that people have different views on and will never agree on.
This tragedy is horrible, that I know we can all agree on.
-
After talking to a few people I am going to unlock. Keep it civil and professional people. Remember things like this are your opinions and not black and white.
-
In other words, stop arguing about gun control here. Talk about the events, but no fighting. We have a thread about gun control somewhere already. go there .
-
@JaredBusch said:
In other words, stop arguing about gun control here. Talk about the events, but no fighting. We have a thread about gun control somewhere already. go there .
I think that that is in the "Non-IT News" thread.
-
<self moderation>
Content removed.
Not really adding to the discussion.
Also, can't purge own posts anymore
</self moderation> -
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
Then you look at places like Nazi Germany and North Korea were the people were unarmed by the government while things were good. It wasn't until after they were disarmed that things got bad.
Nazi Germany did not disarm the people. The Nazis reversed the gun restrictions that had been there. This is often misquoted to make it seem like Hitler was anti-gun to gain control of the people. Quite the opposite.
Germany had strict gun control and removed it under the Nazis. Today Germany is among the safest places on earth and also has nearly the strictest gun control. Germany is possibly the best example in modern history of gun control directly being tied to good things and loosening it to bad ones.
In 2011 all Germany policemen shot 85 bullets
https://www.rt.com/usa/us-germany-85-shots-022/I don't know the data of Spain or rest of EU but maybe quite similar.
-
@iroal said:
In 2011 all Germany policemen shot 85 bullets
https://www.rt.com/usa/us-germany-85-shots-022/I don't know the data of Spain or rest of EU but maybe quite similar.
Few Americans realize how big Germany is. Germany is more than 80 million people, so roughly 25% the size of the US. So for the US, that would be equal to 340 bullets.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@iroal said:
In 2011 all Germany policemen shot 85 bullets
https://www.rt.com/usa/us-germany-85-shots-022/I don't know the data of Spain or rest of EU but maybe quite similar.
Few Americans realize how big Germany is. Germany is more than 80 million people, so roughly 25% the size of the US. So for the US, that would be equal to 340 bullets.
I wonder if that means that the German Police are actually better shots, ha ha ha.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@iroal said:
In 2011 all Germany policemen shot 85 bullets
https://www.rt.com/usa/us-germany-85-shots-022/I don't know the data of Spain or rest of EU but maybe quite similar.
Few Americans realize how big Germany is. Germany is more than 80 million people, so roughly 25% the size of the US. So for the US, that would be equal to 340 bullets.
I wonder if that means that the German Police are actually better shots, ha ha ha.
Hopefully, regardless of anything else, that is true.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
This was the second mass shooting in the US today and the 355th so far this year. Mass shootings in the US are truly routine at this point.
I disagree with this. Prior to Columbine and all the more recent mass shootings, something like the Georgia incident would never have been deemed a mass shooting. Even if it is "mass" by textbook definition.
The entire mass shooting statistic is made up to server political purposes.
A very good article on this subject. That 355 number is completely made up by one person with his own agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html
-
@JaredBusch said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
This was the second mass shooting in the US today and the 355th so far this year. Mass shootings in the US are truly routine at this point.
I disagree with this. Prior to Columbine and all the more recent mass shootings, something like the Georgia incident would never have been deemed a mass shooting. Even if it is "mass" by textbook definition.
The entire mass shooting statistic is made up to server political purposes.
A very good article on this subject. That 355 number is completely made up by one person with his own agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html
Likewise the lower number and complete misuse of the term "shooting" is one by the FBI for its own agenda as well. FBI looks only at mass murder, not mass shootings (using the term mass shooting is outright lying on their part for the purpose of deception - they are not tracking shootings at all but only deaths, you could shoot thousands of people and as long as they are only injured it would be ignored.) They also discount lots of kinds of even mass murder.
ANY count on mass shootings is going to be the opinion of the person compiling the list. But there is no reasonable way that the FBI definition can be used with the words "mass shootings" in any honest context. "Mass intentional murders using guns", yes, that might work. But the FBI has been heavily criticized for using misleading terms and pointless measurements to cover up their inability to curtail shootings. That the US has redefined "shooting" as "death" for the purpose of misleading the public is the very reason that a different definition must be used for any honest discussion around shootings.
That does not mean that the 355 number is a good one, but the low FBI number is a total misrepresentation and the need for the US government to cover up how bad the situation is alone is a key reason that we need to be alarmed. If the number was not appalling,they would not need to institutionally bury it.
Most media outlets state their definition of mass shooting before stating stats. If people did not agree with the definition they could just ignore those stats. The FBI actually redefines the English, not just putting constraints on the grey portions (mass is interpretive, shooting is not, yet it is shooting that they redefine!)
-
For example, the FBI only tracks successful slaughter in public, not semi-successful ones. Should the availability and competence of doctors, for example, be a deciding factor in the statistics? If the goal is to track, understand and stop these things should our skill at saving lives after the tragedy has happened be a deciding factor as to whether or not we include the event?
-
Should there be new terms? Perhaps. I think we all know that mass shooting means exactly what it sounds like. And we all know that what we are really talking about, most of the time, is something more specific. With that, I think we can mostly agree. But when we are talking about stopping specific motives or understanding threats we need to see one stat (motive based.) If we are concerned about guns we need to see another (shootings.) Each plays a different role. People afraid of guns don't care why people were shot or if they died, only that someone had a gun and was willing to use it. When we are looking for terrorist we don't care about people who just snapped or had a bad day at work. When we are looking for crazed murderers we don't care that they used guns, knives or toothpicks.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
For example, the FBI only tracks successful slaughter in public, not semi-successful ones. Should the availability and competence of doctors, for example, be a deciding factor in the statistics? If the goal is to track, understand and stop these things should our skill at saving lives after the tragedy has happened be a deciding factor as to whether or not we include the event?
yes, they track homicides. That is all that was every tracked under this term. Just because you want to redefine the it, does not invalidate it.
Guess what, non-lethal information is also tracked. That is how this new definition was produced by this guy in the first place.
You don't have to like the term, but that is how it has been reported for decades. If you want to redefine it to be technically correct, that is fine, but you have to make it known that you are redefining the current understanding of the term to something different. Otherwise it is nothing but fraud and sensationalism for your own purpose.
Prove to me that anyone in the mass media was reporting the 355 number and explaining the new way of counting is different than it has been for decades and I will stop arguing. The problem is that you cannot because no one was until today.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Should there be new terms? Perhaps. I think we all know that mass shooting means exactly what it sounds like. And we all know that what we are really talking about, most of the time, is something more specific. With that, I think we can mostly agree. But when we are talking about stopping specific motives or understanding threats we need to see one stat (motive based.) If we are concerned about guns we need to see another (shootings.) Each plays a different role. People afraid of guns don't care why people were shot or if they died, only that someone had a gun and was willing to use it. When we are looking for terrorist we don't care about people who just snapped or had a bad day at work. When we are looking for crazed murderers we don't care that they used guns, knives or toothpicks.
Unlike you, I am not afraid of guns. They are a tool and do not scare me. Others do not share that sentiment, but do not push your fear on me.
-
@JaredBusch said:
yes, they track homicides. That is all that was every tracked under this term. Just because you want to redefine the it, does not invalidate it.
Shooting does not mean homicide. You don't go to a shooting range and kill people, you just shoot. It is hardly me "redefining" super basic English language words here. This is not about me and that's just deflection. The FBI uses the term to be misleading. This is just about the language. The FBI does not have the "right" to redefine the language. The government might give them the right to use it however they choose, but the power to control the language and its meaning does not rest with one government agency.
