1 or 2, at most3 or 49 or 10 terrorist attacks per year isn't that bad, we can live with that.
Imagine fleeing from your shit country destroyed by your shit religion and then coming to a great country that welcomes you with open arms and takes care of you and then you choose to repay that generosity with hate, rape and murder.
Just two days ago we had a rape of a 19-year old local girl by an Iranian asylum seeker close to an asylum center in Sønderjylland. And 17-year old Emilie has been missing for a week now in Korsør, a small city 20 min. from where I live, where they just had a new asylum center built. The consequences if she turns up savaged by one of the 'refugees' will be far-reaching not only for the already pressed local community but for the nation as a whole. We are not used to shit like this and patience is wearing very thin among even the most liberal of my countrymen.
This is the issue I have with regards to what I understand to be Oberyn's position. Why should I care about my fellow countrymen that much? Realistically, nobody I care about is a potential victim of mass immigration, and that's just the truth. I can understand his logic from a white trash populist point of view, but it doesn't really work otherwise.
We are not used to shit like this and patience is wearing very thin among even the most liberal of my countrymen.
kd ratio 0.0
No, 0.1.
Thanks police, one less scumbag in the world. Good that he was a weak and inefficient scumbag and nobody got killed by his ISIL teen rants.
No, 0.1.
Thanks police, one less scumbag in the world. Good that he was a weak and inefficient scumbag and nobody got killed by his ISIL teen rants.
Imagine fleeing from your shit country destroyed by your shit religion and then coming to a great country that welcomes you with open arms and takes care of you and then you choose to repay that generosity with hate, rape and murder.
Just two days ago we had a rape of a 19-year old local girl by an Iranian asylum seeker close to an asylum center in Sønderjylland. And 17-year old Emilie has been missing for a week now in Korsør, a small city 20 min. from where I live, where they just had a new asylum center built. The consequences if she turns up savaged by one of the 'refugees' will be far-reaching not only for the already pressed local community but for the nation as a whole. We are not used to shit like this and patience is wearing very thin among even the most liberal of my countrymen.
edit:(click to show/hide)
Damn it Falka, too soon.
What if someone in the cRPG community that lost their wife/children in the attack sees this? Show some respect.
It appears that they were going to offer him a baker apprenticeship. How much more damage could he have done with a little more patience?
That's what I'm afraid of. It is going to become nasty when leftist regressive cucks change their opinion, because they will take far right stance immediately. There will be just far right at that point. People forget that balance is important.
Gun platform anyone?What a retarded post, even for you. There are gun attacks where no one dies (but the perpetrator, and sometimes not even him). And the truck guy killed MORE people with a truck than the vast, vast, vast majority of people ever manage to kill with guns, even when not working alone. And vehicles are available much easier than guns.
No?
No Xant here saying that guns aren't the issue because just as many people die in attacks where guns are only kinda partially involved?
We are not used to shit like this and patience is wearing very thin among even the most liberal of my countrymen.
If the power and wealth differentials were indeed the most salient issue, there would be the same expression of discontent manifested in extreme violence from every single "disadvantaged" group, regardless of origin, ethnicity, religion, or culture. That is clearly not the case.
Maybe I'm late to the party but anyone heard Slavoj Zizek on multiculturalism?
Vigilantism is rare in well-ordered societies, people expect the proper institutions to take care of such things and will vote accordingly.Denmark is one of the countries I would gladly move to as a swede, we're neighbours but still total opposites. You're language is fucked tough, don't know if I could ever learn it.
As for the political debate climate it is not so here in Denmark, immigration problems are discussed very openly and every major political party is looking to tighten immigration and asylum laws. The nationalist Danish People's Party is currently one of the most influential parties in the country and has been for years.
Even our traditional workers' party, The Social Democrats, seem to understand that mass-immigration and multi-culture is a mistake (at least in regards to African and Islamic culture) and likewise even The Socialist People's Party to the left of them (of course we won't know for sure before they sit in government). Left are only maniacs on the fringes such as The Radical Left and The Alternative who fortunately have little support among the population. On the other hand we have brand new parties to the right of the Danish People's Party (considered 'far right' just some years ago), and 13% of the population would vote for a party with an even more stringent immigration policy than what is currently represented in parliament, as shown by a recent survey.
How effective have truck battering-rams been in killing people inside a club or on a train? Just because 1 person managed to individually kill a whole heap of people and barely used the gun he had to do it, getting most kills from the truck, doesn't mean gun control is meaningless with regards to terrorism. Even with all the health and safety controls in the world an idiot could still find a way to kill himself with a toothpick, that doesn't mean health and safety and control on certain harmful products is meaningless.Wow, you're fucking retarded.
Rudimentary logic 1:
- Axeman let lose in an enclosed space on German train. Large number wounded. No deaths.
- Gunman let lose in enclosed space in Florida club. Many deaths.
Rudimentary logic 2:
- Same 17 yr old Afghani attacks same people on the same train. He has a gun. Still no deaths?
- Same self-hating homosexual muslim attacks same people in same club in Florida. He only has an axe. Same number of deaths?
None of that is changed because trucks also kill people in an open crowded setting. But I guess that would take some degree of logical thinking and awareness, unsurprising that you took the bait and unsurprising that you claim 'one attack with an axe doesn't prove shit' whilst claiming that one attack with a truck proves everything. Now that's a retarded post.
Same self-hating homosexual muslim attacks same people in same club in Florida.
A:Nerfing ranged makes no sense because that guy could just go cav which is overpowered anyway.Yes, because terrorists are limited in their avenues of attack, am I right? It all depends on what map is playing on the server. If it's the gay club map, that's where they've got to attack. Moron.
B:But at least on siege or cramped maps...
A:You're retarded.
It seems that there are at least two types of attacks lately. Firstly organized ones, done by a group of people. Against these I indeed see no big impact of a gun ban since they will find other methods or ways to circumvent it. I'm afraid there is a lot more to come with exploiting certain bottlenecks(food poisoning whatever). Their weak point might be communication where they can be caught in advance because they are, well, a group that has to organize shit.The truck driver was working alone, and why would you need a group of people to access a vehicle?
The second, much harder to intercept, type seem to be lunatics that radicalize themselves via internet propaganda and finally go ballistic triggered by a personal crisis. While non-radicals might simply jump in front of a train, our mudslime decided to go full Skyrim inside of one. Here I have to agree with Heskey that a gun ban makes a difference. There is usually less planning involved and you grap what you have in reach. If that is a knife or semi-auto only version of an infantry rifle usually has a heavy impact on the death toll here. That keys to a truck trumps all in a certain situation is a different story but you have to have those first too. On average the harder to get a potent weapon, they more difficult it is to do damage.
I forgot the obligatory insult that seems to be state of art lately for whatever reason.
Dropout.
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attack
0 deaths, terrorist had an assault rifle and a pistol, 2 civilians injured.
Meanwhile, Afghan with an axe injured 5 people.
So how does the gun ban make a difference again? The rhetoric was born dead from every angle.
Of course, that's only terrorist attacks. Homicides and general gun violence is a different story altogether which, in the US's case at least, is still more than enough to warrant heavier gun restrictions. This only means terror attacks are a fairly poor reason to introduce restrictions.An entirely different subject, but it's still debatable.
An entirely different subject, but it's still debatable.Not to blow that off, but I wasn't persuaded by that information the first time I saw it because it's only correlative. Show me a few studies with a before and after where basically nothing else changed, then I'll concede the point.
http://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/another-school-shooting-in-murrica-(oregon-edition)/msg1173014/#msg1173014
Demographics are the problem, not the tools used.
they also add that the teenager looks rather like somebody at his thirties.
The number of children seeking asylum in Sweden has exploded over the last ten years, presumably because children are granted asylum much quicker than adults, and Swedish authorities don't verify the age of these "children." Refugees are allowed to bring their entire family to Sweden once they get residency status.
Other countries have been successful in using various methods to establish the age of people claiming to be children, but this practice is considered invasive and "bad" in Sweden these days. Recently, a survey in Denmark showed that 72% of asylum-seeker "children" were actually adults. The fact that Denmark carries out these controls could explain why only 818 children sought asylum there last year, compared to Sweden's 7,049. Finland and Norway also conduct age tests, and estimate that 66% of those tested are over 18.http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6190/sweden-refugee-children
In September 2014, social commentator Merit Wager wrote:
"That there should be such a huge discrepancy between Sweden and other Nordic countries when it comes to the age of unaccompanied 'children' seems highly unlikely."
Wager quoted Anders Thomas, who worked for the Immigration Service for eight years:
"It was a bizarre experience, to sit there and investigate '16-year-olds' who were obviously closer to my age. Back then, you had the option to do age verification; that is not the case today, when pretty much all the people who claim to be children are let in. What happens when these grown men start high school along with real 16-17-year-olds?"
Not to blow that off, but I wasn't persuaded by that information the first time I saw it because it's only correlative. Show me a few studies with a before and after where basically nothing else changed, then I'll concede the point.There have been before/after "experiments" in US towns, and the results have been the same. In fact, sometimes crime and homicides increase after guns are banned. And how is it "only correlative"? The data clearly shows that guns aren't the problem by comparing states and countries with different gun laws, and finding no correlation between gun laws and amount of homicides. It's common sense, too. US has more homicides than European countries because it's a cultural melting pot, and has many ghettos.
There have been before/after "experiments" in US towns, and the results have been the same. In fact, sometimes crime and homicides increase after guns are banned. And how is it "only correlative"? The data clearly shows that guns aren't the problem by comparing states and countries with different gun laws, and finding no correlation between gun laws and amount of homicides. It's common sense, too. US has more homicides than European countries because it's a cultural melting pot, and has many ghettos.Because 50 states and a couple dozen countries is a relatively small pool for how complex societies/communities are. There is a huge degree of variance between each state. What are the factors that allow for a community to pass gun control laws? Can both high crime and low crime + progressive population lead to gun control? I'd imagine so, but this is the type of thing that will just obscure the data. So without proper controls, you're taking a risk by drawing conclusions one way or the other from this type of data.
Because 50 states and a couple dozen countries is a relatively small pool for how complex societies/communities are. There is a huge degree of variance between each state. What are the factors that allow for a community to pass gun control laws? Can both high crime and low crime + progressive population lead to gun control? I'd imagine so, but this is the type of thing that will just obscure the data. So without proper controls, you're taking a risk by drawing conclusions one way or the other from this type of data.What you can conclude from the data is that you can't say guns are the problem and reason for the amount of homicides, and that's the point. The burden of proof is on the ones claiming that different gun laws would result in less homicides.
Regardless of whether or not this data had convinced me, you won't convince enough people for it to matter without better data because it's just too easy to imagine a scenario where if you just took a gun away from the culprit, you would have a less severe situation.
What you can conclude from the data is that you can't say guns are the problem and reason for the amount of homicides, and that's the point. The burden of proof is on the ones claiming that different gun laws would result in less homicides.Again, I don't think you can conclude anything other than that the data is inconclusive. Still maintains the validity of your next point though.
Again, I don't think you can conclude anything other than that the data is inconclusive. Still maintains the validity of your next point though.If the data is "inconclusive", that means you can conclude you can't say guns are the problem and the reason for the amount of homicides. That doesn't mean it proves the pro-gun lobby right, it just means it proves the common argument of the anti-gun lobby "just look at US homicide rates" wrong. Even the most favorable reading of those statistics for the anti-gun lobby is at best "inconclusive", i.e., not supporting their argument, and at worst it completely counters it.
The US Supreme Court Heller decision says differently. It held that there is an individual constitutional right to bear firearms.
The 2nd amendment was made in a completely different time, refers to a regulated militia, where guns were large and slow firing muskets, not something you stuff in your pants.
The US Supreme Court Heller decision says differently. It held that there is an individual constitutional right to bear firearms.
especially now that DNA goes everywhere.Exactly the opposite, knives are better if you want to get away with murder.
Reason is of course easy access to guns, of which around 75% of their homicides can be attributed to. (2012: 8,897 firearm related murders)More guns makes it more likely to choose to use a gun. Your argument only works in cases where no other type of weapon that is of relatively similar ease to acquire could have been used to commit the murder. Some people might just be dense, but I have a feeling they just want a solution that actually gets to the heart of the problem(why people commit murder in the first place).
Now, how fucking thick you have to be, to understand that having lots and lots of guns makes it more likely tousechoose one?
More guns makes it more likely to choose to use a gun.
The US Supreme Court Heller decision says differently. It held that there is an individual constitutional right to bear firearms.visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Well if you choose a gun, you are much more likely to succeed, and if you are more likely to succeed, you are more likely to go through with it. Would Einstein attack Poland if he thought he would loose?Citation needed. You're just ASSuming that people who want to murder other people would go like "nah, it'd be too hard to knife him from behind, I'd totally kill him if I had a gun though."
It's like people are assuming the same would happen without guns. Which is retarded.
Well, as you obviously know, it's impossible to travel back in time, remove the gun, and see what happens.Yes, we can't know. That doesn't mean you can take your opinion and call it "logic and common sense."
We are left with logic and common sense:
For example, what if the guy you wanted to murder wasn't standing with his back to you? Attacking him with a knife, especially without training would be a high risk proposition. He could wrestle the knife from you, and kill u with it.
If both have guns, there's another game theory layer, the only option that will guarantee your survival is to shoot first. You don't even need to know for sure that he has a gun, just the reasonable chance is enough to make it advantageous for you to pull the trigger.
That's just two pretty common situations where guns raise the stakes and makes murder much more likely.
How hard is to understand that letting people, PEOPLE, the average and below idiots, carry and play with tools which can murder anyone on the slightest temporary mental whim. It's insanity.
For collectors, gunlovers, and people generally able and motivated enough to take a course, do an exam and get a mental checkup, let them have whatever they want I say.
US is in a nice club of countries when it gets to intentional homicide rate:(click to show/hide)
Point is, they shouldn't be there. They are so much richer, stable and developed than the rest of the countries there, that it doesn't make any sense at all.
Reason is of course easy access to guns, of which around 75% of their homicides can be attributed to. (2012: 8,897 firearm related murders)
Now, how fucking thick you have to be, to understand that having lots and lots of guns makes it more likely to use one? It's a quick, effective and safe tool to ensure murder for the killer. It's much less messy than using a knife, especially now that DNA goes everywhere. It's also way easier for suicide than to hang yourself or other slow, painful or unsure methods that require planning and meticulous execution. (Buy, get medicine, be guaranteed alone for hours or whatnot. Many people change their minds or are unable to successfully do it when they are in that mood. A gun is a press of a button. )
I can kind of understand it if you are a criminal, or under high risk of violent criminal activity for some reason. Or if you simply love guns. (Guns are fun, I shot the G3 and mp5 in the army, was even a decent shooter.)
I understand the country is flooded with guns, and it would be a long undertaking to reduce the amount, but you have to start somewhere. And that is, to at the least, ensure that if people want guns, they have to be a member of a club, take a shooting exam, and know how to use and store their firearms. Maybe even a mental checkup/doctors paper every 4-5 years. It really isn't too much to ask, similar things are required for drivers.
The 2nd amendment was made in a completely different time, refers to a regulated militia, where guns were large and slow firing muskets, not something you stuff in your pants.
problem is - if you'd deduct black population from the statistics, they have almost the same homicide rate as any other european country - and yeah its statistically proven fact (the most homicides are among black males aged 20-25 and i mean really like "the most").
Citation needed that they would have the same homicide rate as any other European country
Yes, and they promptly disregard that it was written in a vastly different time. Where you had random attacks from the indians, just had a major war with european powers, a wild west etc..
This way of reading the constitution called "Orginialism" equates to religious fanatics that read the Bible or the Quran by the letter.
Apologies for the Daily Mail rag link, but mostly using it for the video of the "17" year old "boy".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3696410/Man-attacks-21-people-AXE-train-Germany-shot-police.html#v-1953696156883437776
Citation needed that they would have the same homicide rate as any other European country
(we have black people here too btw, but let's put that to one side for the time being)
And do I also deduct the homicides where black people kill black in Europe, where black kill white and where white kill black?
(that last one made me lol, get rid of the blacks because of all the crime stats they add, including the stats where they get killed)
you have to compare how many homicides are done by/among/to black in every country, that is the hard data, this is just jerking off.
There is clearly no correlation here (even solely within the US data) between % Black in your population and homicide rate. Colorado has the highest % Black of those within 0.5% of England, but nearly half the homicide rate of Alaska which has the 2nd lowest % of black people in their population. West Virginia has a lower % black than Washington but more murders per capita. I'd like better data ideally since I had to get the UK stuff from a different source, between even within the US using data compiled in the same place using the same definitions, there is no obvious link between % black and murder rates.
So if 'The Blacks' aren't causing all your relatively high homicide rates, I wonder what else could be... hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Now tell me, if I were to google the respective gun laws for these US States, would I find more stringent firearm controls in a State such as.... Iowa with it's 1.2 homicide rate as compared to say.... Alaska which has over 3 times that homicide rate? I'm sure I wouldn't right?
Adding a lot of variables here Beachamp. But let's test the statement that the US has a higher homicide ratenot due to guns but due to black people as best as we can....
yo statistics - do you know that us two we had a half chicken each for the dinner tnight? no? well i had the whole one.is the problem that all the police officers won't stop shooting them?
britain has 0.9 murder rate
europe has 3.0
alaska has 4.4
well guess what a fucking switzerland - 0.5 homicide rate - no blacks! wow so compare it to britain. 40 percents of their homicides must be done by blacks. (ironic example)
you have to compare how many homicides are done by/among/to black in every country, that is the hard data, this is just jerking off.
i think it was said in newsroom tv series: the first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. black community has one big problem in the usa, yet blacks are not able to recognize it. i'm not sure what else to write so i will just stop here.(click to show/hide)
is the problem that all the police officers won't stop shooting them?
http://newobserveronline.com/90-nonwhite-violent-crime-rate-fbi/
is the problem that all the police officers won't stop shooting them?
Stats are fun, to test the exact hypothesis that Beauchamp gave me:
Blacks cause the extra crime rate in the US and that if there were no Blacks then the US would have the same crime rate as your average European country.
I tested this by comparing states with a similar % of Black people to a European country I could easily get stats for. There are limits to this, but it wasn't designed to answer the big questions only to test a poorly conceived hypothesis.
As for your post, I don't remember Beauchamp wanting to compare State by State, only prove that they only have more homicide than European countries because of Blacks. That is a provably false claim, take any US state with the same % of black people as a European country and the homicide will be the same or worse.
Stats are fun, to test the exact hypothesis that Beauchamp gave me:
Blacks cause the extra crime rate in the US and that if there were no Blacks then the US would have the same crime rate as your average European country.
I tested this by comparing states with a similar % of Black people to a European country I could easily get stats for. There are limits to this, but it wasn't designed to answer the big questions only to test a poorly conceived hypothesis.
As for your post, I don't remember Beauchamp wanting to compare State by State, only prove that they only have more homicide than European countries because of Blacks. That is a provably false claim, take any US state with the same % of black people as a European country and the homicide will be the same or worse.
I used statistics to 'prove' my point because I was given a clear hypothesis that was provably false.
I was invited to compare the US without black people to any European country. Which seemed like a flawed test because then I'm comparing apples and oranges, 2 nations with different stats across the board (normally) and removing black people from one population but not the other. The 'proof' in this case was simple as I was invited to compare homicide rate between US and European countries, so did so in areas with consistent levels of black people. I only needed specific stats, because I was testing a specific claim.
My claim that you were responding to, is not a claim but a question:
"So, if firearms are not the issue and it is infact Black people who are responsible why do none of these US States have a lower Homicide rate than England?"
A question you have still failed to answer. If firearms are not the issue, why do none of these US States that have the same % of black people as England, have much higher homicide rates?
If you are still adamant that it is the black people and not the guns, then that begs the further question of why American black people are so much more violent than European black people.
A question you have still failed to answer. If firearms are not the issue, why do these US States that have the same % of black people as England, have much higher homicide rates?
If you are still adamant that it is the black people and not the guns, then that begs the further question of why American black people are so much more violent than European black people.
Shooting by police mostly happens during criminal activity so proportionally more shot are those ethnics that are proportionally involved in more crimes (black people are typical example).i studied at the university of retards from 1723 to 2034.
What school did you finish if I may ask?
No, a Harvard study showed that there isn't a racial bias in who the police shoot. They shoot everyone equally :?