Awful events in Paris 2015-11-14

Forums › Off topic › Awful events in Paris 2015-11-14

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 16

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1428663 16-Nov-2015 09:58

Fred99:
sir1963:

In gun happy USA, you are more than 4 times more likely to be killed in a car than be shot.

US deaths per 100,000 people:
Guns : 10.5 (includes suicide)
Automobile 10.3
(2013 stats).

I have posted this previously here on geekzone:
Actually there are some states in the US that are safer than NZ.

There are some extremely bad states in the US, but some are really not that bad at all. You cant tar the entire country with the same brush. Its a big place.

Plenty of states in America which are less than 1.45 per 100 000 people. Iowa for example where gun ownership is 42% (yes safer than NZ)
Gun ownership in some other states is lower, yet murders by gun is higher. Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
interesting that the states with the highest gun ownership also have the least gun murders.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1428667 16-Nov-2015 10:03

Despite all the millions of guns in the USA owned and carried by private citizens, they don't seem to do much good when it comes to stopping the very regular mass shootings that occur in that country.

There are approx 20,000 gun deaths a year in the USA.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1428671 16-Nov-2015 10:05

DizzyD:
Fred99:
sir1963:

In gun happy USA, you are more than 4 times more likely to be killed in a car than be shot.

US deaths per 100,000 people:
Guns : 10.5 (includes suicide)
Automobile 10.3
(2013 stats).

I have posted this previously here on geekzone:
Actually there are some states in the US that are safer than NZ.

There are some extremely bad states in the US, but some are really not that bad at all. You cant tar the entire country with the same brush. Its a big place.

Plenty of states in America which are less than 1.45 per 100 000 people. Iowa for example where gun ownership is 42% (yes safer than NZ)
Gun ownership in some other states is lower, yet murders by gun is higher. Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
interesting that the states with the highest gun ownership also have the least gun murders.

I hadn't looked at this thread until this morning, and while I read through it I wondered where DizzyD would pipe up and derail the conversation; you haven't disappointed me! Really, is there any need to take this thread where you appear to be going?

It seems to me you are developing a habit of cr@pping on such threads with your strongly-held beliefs on such things as gun control and religion... the strident tone of both these posts and where it takes such threads does remove my interest in reading or engaging in them, that's for sure...

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1428672 16-Nov-2015 10:05

DarthKermit: Despite all the millions of guns in the USA owned and carried by private citizens, they don't seem to do much good when it comes to stopping the very regular mass shootings that occur in that country.

There are approx 20,000 gun deaths a year in the USA.

Guns in the US are banned from schools/universities etc ..

Take a look at where all of these shooting take place.

Terrorists, "gun nuts", will normally target the places where they know people are not armed.

sir1963

3265 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1428676 16-Nov-2015 10:07

Fred99:
sir1963:

In gun happy USA, you are more than 4 times more likely to be killed in a car than be shot.

US deaths per 100,000 people:
Guns : 10.5 (includes suicide)
Automobile 10.3
(2013 stats).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
2012 Deaths 33,561

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1428677 16-Nov-2015 10:07

jonathan18:

I hadn't looked at this thread until this morning, and while I read through it I wondered where DizzyD would pipe up and derail the conversation; you haven't disappointed me! Really, is there any need to take this thread where you appear to be going?

It seems to me you are developing a habit of cr@pping on such threads with your strongly-held beliefs on such things as gun control and religion... the strident tone of both these posts and where it takes such threads does remove my interest in reading or engaging in them, that's for sure...

Apologies mate. No more gun talk from me.
Just found it interesting that its always the gun free zones that seem to be the targets.

sir1963

3265 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1428682 16-Nov-2015 10:12

DizzyD:
DarthKermit: Despite all the millions of guns in the USA owned and carried by private citizens, they don't seem to do much good when it comes to stopping the very regular mass shootings that occur in that country.

There are approx 20,000 gun deaths a year in the USA.

Guns in the US are banned from schools/universities etc ..

Take a look at where all of these shooting take place.

Terrorists, "gun nuts", will normally target the places where they know people are not armed.

And that has been disproved too.
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-gun-free-zone-myth-mass-murder-magnets/

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18667 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1428703 16-Nov-2015 10:38

BarTender: I think it's disappointing that no one yet has mentioned Beirut.

A similar number of people killed and injured. Yet the response from the mass media couldn't be more stark.

It's unfortunate that the media don't just call the people "crazy nutjobs committing mass shootings" rather than Islamic anything. Then perhaps we would also include in that the very high number of mass shootings happening in the US.

Trying to have some perspective.

Your point deserves a serious response but this thread keeps shooting off (pun intended) in different directions. I have also often wondered about this. Death and misery and injustice is the same wherever it occurs and whoever it occurs to. I can't get images of weeping Syrian fathers holding their dead children out of my mind.

Beirut is every bit as shocking as Paris. The reason Paris affected me more, is because I have memories of the place and associations with it, which for me is not the case with Beirut. If it had have been, I would have felt the same. But you are certainly right about the media bias. Another reason to watch Al Jazeera.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1428714 16-Nov-2015 10:41

Looks like France is wasting no time and has started bombing Syria.

France announces Raqqa airstrikes on ISIS

sir1963

3265 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1428718 16-Nov-2015 10:45

DizzyD:
Fred99:
sir1963:

In gun happy USA, you are more than 4 times more likely to be killed in a car than be shot.

US deaths per 100,000 people:
Guns : 10.5 (includes suicide)
Automobile 10.3
(2013 stats).

I have posted this previously here on geekzone:
Actually there are some states in the US that are safer than NZ.

There are some extremely bad states in the US, but some are really not that bad at all. You cant tar the entire country with the same brush. Its a big place.

Plenty of states in America which are less than 1.45 per 100 000 people. Iowa for example where gun ownership is 42% (yes safer than NZ)
Gun ownership in some other states is lower, yet murders by gun is higher. Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
interesting that the states with the highest gun ownership also have the least gun murders.

It is far far more complex than that.
For example there is an analysis of highest/lowest gun death based on if they voted for Obama
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/gun-deaths-by-state
Blue is for Obama (17/20 safest states), Red is for Romney (18/20 worst states).

Other influential things are
Poverty
Employment
Quality of law enforcement
Quantity of law enforcement
Organised crime
Drugs (legal and illegal)
Education
Health
Social acceptance of crime
Marital status
Mental health support
Background checks
Family status (single/married/blended/etc)
Law equality (racial bias, wealth bias, sexual bias, sexual orientation bias)
etc etc etc etc etc.

Simplistic narratives designed to fit a particular bias are not reliable.
We could argue voting for Obama will save more lives and he should be allowed the 3rd term.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1428719 16-Nov-2015 10:46

DizzyD: Looks like France is wasting no time and has started bombing Syria.

France announces Raqqa airstrikes on ISIS

Is this the start of another war?

The War started a long time ago.

France was already involved in joint operations over Syria

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1428721 16-Nov-2015 10:47

Fred99: These terrorists were reported to be wearing TATP explosive vests. If you got close enough to hit them with a handgun, there's a very high probability that the vest would explode and kill you - or anybody else around.

Well, that was going to happen anyway...!

Oldmanakbar

110 posts

Master Geek

#1428808 16-Nov-2015 12:12

MikeB4:
DizzyD: Looks like France is wasting no time and has started bombing Syria.

France announces Raqqa airstrikes on ISIS

Is this the start of another war?

The War started a long time ago.

France was already involved in joint operations over Syria

Serious question. I know this derails the conversation a bit from Paris, but it is connected.

If the countries sharing information and going about airstrikes in the region already knew where these supposedly critical targets were, why were they not eliminated a long time ago? They obviously have the intelligence (satellites, drones etc) to know where everything not underground or in a cave is, and they definitely have the means to destroy them.

I just don't get it. People go on about how there is no real target etc etc, but with ISIS there actually is. They have definable infrastructure that can be destroyed.
Destroying that definitely hurts them, they do not have unlimited resources. Not to mention putting the fear of god into anyone considering joining their insane cause is psychological warfare 101.

Everyone knows where all of their strongholds are. Time to take the gloves off maybe?

Yes, I am aware there are innocent civilians everywhere. Yes I am aware the situation is complex. But at some point in large scale conflict someone needs to weigh up short term pain for long term gain.

If it continues as it currently is the death toll will be even more nuts than it is now. Far far larger military conflicts have been launched for far less in the past, some of them recently.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1428834 16-Nov-2015 12:27

Oldmanakbar:

If the countries sharing information and going about airstrikes in the region already knew where these supposedly critical targets were, why were they not eliminated a long time ago? They obviously have the intelligence (satellites, drones etc) to know where everything not underground or in a cave is, and they definitely have the means to destroy them.

Now there is a reason to blast them.

Oldmanakbar:
I just don't get it. People go on about how there is no real target etc etc, but with ISIS there actually is. They have definable infrastructure that can be destroyed.
Destroying that definitely hurts them, they do not have unlimited resources. Not to mention putting the fear of god into anyone considering joining their insane cause is psychological warfare 101.

Everyone knows where all of their strongholds are. Time to take the gloves off maybe?

Yes, I am aware there are innocent civilians everywhere. Yes I am aware the situation is complex. But at some point in large scale conflict someone needs to weigh up short term pain for long term gain.

If it continues as it currently is the death toll will be even more nuts than it is now. Far far larger military conflicts have been launched for far less in the past, some of them recently.

Europe is in the cr@p. And there are no real solutions.
Taking out the enemy is no longer an option. Its against human rights to do so anymore. ISIS knows it, and they are using this as leverage for their own agenda and gain.
There is a good documentary on youtube called "With Open Gates". Go have a look at it and you will see what Europe is really up against.

What can they do? I don't know if this problem is really solvable in the short term. All I know is that Germany/France will no longer be the same places in 10-20 years from now. Europe really does need to act now. As a start, ban Sharia law and the practices of Islam.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1428835 16-Nov-2015 12:29

Oldmanakbar:
MikeB4:
DizzyD: Looks like France is wasting no time and has started bombing Syria.

France announces Raqqa airstrikes on ISIS

Is this the start of another war?

The War started a long time ago.

France was already involved in joint operations over Syria

Serious question. I know this derails the conversation a bit from Paris, but it is connected.

If the countries sharing information and going about airstrikes in the region already knew where these supposedly critical targets were, why were they not eliminated a long time ago? They obviously have the intelligence (satellites, drones etc) to know where everything not underground or in a cave is, and they definitely have the means to destroy them.

I just don't get it. People go on about how there is no real target etc etc, but with ISIS there actually is. They have definable infrastructure that can be destroyed.
Destroying that definitely hurts them, they do not have unlimited resources. Not to mention putting the fear of god into anyone considering joining their insane cause is psychological warfare 101.

Everyone knows where all of their strongholds are. Time to take the gloves off maybe?

Yes, I am aware there are innocent civilians everywhere. Yes I am aware the situation is complex. But at some point in large scale conflict someone needs to weigh up short term pain for long term gain.

If it continues as it currently is the death toll will be even more nuts than it is now. Far far larger military conflicts have been launched for far less in the past, some of them recently.

There is a book by (I think) Nelson De Mille which has a plot in which a secret cabal within the US government and wealthy citizens plan to instruct a nuclear sub to drop one on the second holiest city in Islam. The theory being that Mecca will get the second one if they do not wind their necks in.

The book must be at least 10 or 12 years old now, so quite prescient. I could easily see that scenario playing out if IS etc continue down the road they are on.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 16