Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

At least seven dead at shooting at Wisconsin Sikh temple

2

Comments

  • #32
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,755 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    MadsL wrote: »
    But of course you can't find it. Because every time something like this happens somebody trots out some supposed statistic. How about not letting myths get ahead of truths in this thread? Not a hope. *steps aside and waits for the US bashing to get going*

    Firearms homicides rates
    just something I've heard a couple of times before, but yeah, if actually look at it US has more guns and more shootings. make sense.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

    myth busted I guess

    The media point is entirely valid however, US glamorises and over reports on incidents like this continually


  • #33
    Actor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 348 ✭✭Actor


    You can't ban guns in the US because the right to bear arms is engrained in the constitution. Nobody's denying that more guns = more crime, but for the average Joe; the most effective way to protect against gun crime is to arm yourself.


  • #34
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Actor wrote: »
    Funny that in States where guns are legal, crime rates are *lower*.

    Not quite, but there is some statistical trend on gun ownership vs murder rate.

    Stats here - rollover the dots for the data from each state

    http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/murder-rate-and-gun-ownership


  • #35
    PizzamanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,147 ✭✭✭PizzamanIRL


    This isn't getting half as much media coverage as the Aurora shooting. Hmmm, wonder why?


  • #36
    Hande hoche!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,967 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    PizzamanIRL wrote: »
    This isn't getting half as much media coverage as the Aurora shooting. Hmmm, wonder why?
    Half the victims maybe?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Probably cos they is foreigners.


  • #38
    NinjaK
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭NinjaK


    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f9c_1344207169&p=1

    police radio, interesting


  • #39
    getuponthis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 202 ✭✭getuponthis


    Only in America, where it's legal to buy a gun and illegal to buy a kinder egg...


  • #40
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Appearing to confirm what most users had apparently anticipated, eyewitness reports suggest the gunman was a white male. Again.

    You really do have to despair for Americans.


  • #41
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Actor wrote: »
    You can't ban guns in the US because the right to bear arms is engrained in the constitution. Nobody's denying that more guns = more crime, but for the average Joe; the most effective way to protect against gun crime is to arm yourself.
    No it isn't, it's the most effective way to misfire and injure an innocent person. Most people aren't particularly ready to shoot a person, this makes situations more volatile than less.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    marshbaboon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭marshbaboon


    There were some great interviews around the time of the columbine shootings relating to media infamy, but Fox found a few people who were willing to blame Marilyn Manson so they stuck that on instead.

    Most mainstream media is absolute poison, but the American outlets are particularly bad.

    In short: the less people who ever remember that this scumbag existed, the better.


  • #43
    Tym
    Closed Accounts Posts: 235 ✭✭Tym


    The presidential candidates and senators need to take a stand against the easy availability of guns and change the law. Its crazy that anyone with id and no criminal record can buy a gun legally and kill many people.

    You should give it a day or two before you use it to prove a point...
    This isn't getting half as much media coverage as the Aurora shooting. Hmmm, wonder why?

    Sectarian violence has been happening since there was religion, while someone going into a cinema, for a movie with high expectations and excitement, and randomly shooting people is rarer.


  • #44
    asherbassad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


    Why is this news when it's a normal day in Afghanistan.


  • #45
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    The reason it's getting less coverage and that the thread in AH is not half as long is because of basic human empathy.

    Most white people identity with other white people getting shot up in a cinema than a group of strange foreigners with turbans and long beards.

    If this was a Muslim shooting up a church... It's sad yet inevitable to have one's lack of faith in humanity re-validated from time to time.


  • #46
    Pj!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,783 ✭✭✭Pj!


    Full credit to the cop.

    Getting paid to rush out and take on a crazed, murdering gunman in a gunfight is not a job for everyone. He surely saved lives. Maybe a lot. Glad to hear he's expected to survive.


  • #47
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    asherbassad wrote: »
    Why is this news when it's a normal day in Afghanistan.

    I don't know if this is still being taught in schools, but if you look at a globe an amazing thing will happen.
    You'll find that Wisconsin and Afghanistan aren't the same place. In fact, they're nowhere near each other.

    It's like magic! Only, not.


  • #48
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Ex-US soldier suspect in Sikh temple attack

    Some reports coming in. Looks like the guy was a Neo-Nazi racist, and they are treating this as domestic terrorism.


  • #49
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    later12 wrote: »
    Appearing to confirm what most users had apparently anticipated, eyewitness reports suggest the gunman was a white male. Again.

    You really do have to despair for Americans.

    Because all Americans want this to happen, :rolleyes:

    Irish intravenous drug use is the highest in Europe, you really have to despair for the Irish. See how that works.
    asherbassad wrote: »
    Why is this news when it's a normal day in Afghanistan.

    Give it a rest, you are like a broken record.


  • #50
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    MadsL wrote: »
    Because all Americans want this to happen, :rolleyes:

    Irish intravenous drug use is the highest in Europe, you really have to despair for the Irish. See how that works.

    Ah! I didn't realise this was a tu quoque exchange.

    At least Ireland has a lower child poverty rate than the USA.

    See how this works?

    No.

    Most of us lament for many aspects of Irish governance.

    Do try not to allow a lament of American firearms abuse injure your sense of patriotism too deeply.


  • #51
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    later12 wrote: »
    Ah! I didn't realise this was a tu quoque exchange.

    At least Ireland has a lower child poverty rate than the USA.

    See how this works?

    No.

    Most of us lament for many aspects of Irish governance.

    Do try not to allow a lament of American firearms abuse injure your sense of patriotism too deeply.

    Sorry, as to this exchange, I didn't realise it was a argumentum ad populum. See how that works?

    As to patriotism, I'm not American or Irish, however I do recognise patronising comments when I see it, and tend to call them.

    Whilst such events are tragic, mock "despair for Americans" is thinly disguised contempt. If you are genuine, I apologise - but something tells me I'm close to the mark.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Wompa1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,360 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    MadsL wrote: »
    Sorry, as to this exchange, I didn't realise it was a argumentum ad populum. See how that works?

    As to patriotism, I'm not American or Irish, however I do recognise patronising comments when I see it, and tend to call them.

    Whilst such events are tragic, mock "despair for Americans" is thinly disguised contempt. If you are genuine, I apologise - but something tells me I'm close to the mark.

    Careful Now! Boards is a strictly Anti-American forum site, we don't take kindly to folk who try to make a point that's not belittling Americans.


  • #53
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    MadsL wrote: »
    Sorry, as to this exchange, I didn't realise it was a argumentum ad populum.
    :confused:

    I'm afraid you don't quite know what an argumentum ad populum is.

    I expressed an opinion, not a belief in a popular misconception, nor endorsement of a position, whether true or misconceived.

    You also just took the tu quoque to a wholly absurd new level.

    I am not wholly surprised.


  • #54
    Logical_Bear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 799 ✭✭✭Logical_Bear


    ^^^^
    dammit knew I should of studied latin.


  • #55
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    later12 wrote: »
    Most of us lament for many aspects of Irish governance.
    later12 wrote: »
    :confused:

    I'm afraid you don't quite know what an argumentum ad populum is.
    I expressed an opinion, not a belief in a popular misconception, nor endorsement of a position, whether true or misconceived.

    You made your position and backed up with some kind of argumentum ad populum based on the supposed fact that 8 of 10 cats lament for Irish governance. Pretty textbook according to this definition.
    You also just took the tu quoque to a wholly absurd new level.
    Deliberately absurd to highlight your patronisng comment. Reductio ad absurdum, if you like. Will we folie a deux while we are at it? You might want to look at which forum you are posting in my literate friend.
    I am not wholly surprised.
    Ah, when in doubt insult the poster. Good job.


  • #56
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    MadsL wrote: »
    You made your position and backed up with some kind of argumentum ad populum based on the supposed fact that 8 of 10 cats lament for Irish governance. Pretty textbook according to

    Where?

    I expressed an opinion; I did not reference any statistic nor endorse any popular misconception; you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

    You do realise, that you are also responding to an allegation of a tu quoque with yet another tu quoque?


  • #57
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    later12 wrote: »
    Where?
    later12 wrote: »
    Most of us lament for many aspects of Irish governance.
    Wikipedia wrote:
    In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

    Not that hard to grasp really.
    You do realise, that you are also responding to an allegation of a tu quoque with yet another tu quoque?

    Yeah, but what about the French?

    Seriously, hadn't realised that AH had such proper debating standards and a degree in philosophy was required - what do you not get about my Reductio ad absurdum statement? My point was meant to highlight an aspect of Irish society that you would probably be annoyed about it I used it to frame my "despair' at the Irish people.
    you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

    And....once again with the insults...charming.

    Sorry, what was your point again?


  • #58
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    MadsL wrote: »
    Not that hard to grasp really.

    Sorry, what was your point again?

    It's simple ; my personal belief that one really does have to lament for Americans in terms of firearms transgressions.

    I have little interest in embarrassing you; however, if you do insist on continuing this line: from your own link
    Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true.

    Sorry.


  • #59
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Actor wrote: »
    You can't ban guns in the US because the right to bear arms is engrained in the constitution. Nobody's denying that more guns = more crime, but for the average Joe; the most effective way to protect against gun crime is to arm yourself.

    They have the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia.

    The actual phrase is
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

    Now a normal person would read that as militia members have the right to bear arms. But the supreme court says it means Joe Redneck can own a semi automatic assault rifle.


  • #60
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Grayson wrote: »
    They have the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia.

    The highlighted portion is your interpretation of that amendment.
    Now a normal person would read that as militia members have the right to bear arms.

    Except (leaving aside your insult about 'normal') Wisconsin also has a constituition as a State, and that says...
    The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
    security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
    [source]

    Which is pretty clear - even to 'normal people'.
    But the supreme court says it means Joe Redneck can own a semi automatic assault rifle.

    If it has a lawful purpose.
    Joe Redneck

    Your arguments would garner more respect if you didn't resort to insulting 60% of the population of Wisconsin.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    later12 wrote: »
    It's simple ; my personal belief that one really does have to lament for Americans in terms of firearms transgressions.

    Compared to?
    later12 wrote: »
    I have little interest in embarrassing you;

    Really? I notice no apology for your little barbed insult earlier.
    however, if you do insist on continuing this line: from your own link
    Are you really claiming that you didn't attempt to back up your point by claiming that most people believe X, therefore it is a valid point of view? Now, you are persisting in arguing that because some technical philosophical nomenclature perhaps doesn't apply in your example that me pulling you up on your arrogant dismissive 'sympathy' is somehow invalid.

    Sorry.

    Is that my apology?


Advertisement
Advertisement