fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2588 ]

[ SECRET POST #2588 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2588 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 103 secrets from Secret Submission Post #370.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Just to say thank you. I was worried for a second there with the above anon you were replying to.

I mean, I'm from a country where we had civil war and terrorism for decades, but if someone wrote a post saying 'so glad I don't live where there's civil war or terrorism, it looks appalling and shocking' I'd just think they were very sensible.

I'm the OP and I stand by my point. You and ayrt are insensitive. I can't believe this is so hard. I wouldn't talk about your country's problems in front of you.

I'm sorry you feel like that. But I don't know what else to say.

Is the news not allowed to report about America, for instance? You are aware that most newspapers have an international section and they're always reporting on the problems in America? That's right there in public on the internet for the whole world to see.

Why should we not talk about countries problems? If you bring up my countries shortcomings* I would be okay with that, it isn't like the issues will go away because we don't talk about them. I think it is healthy to look at other countries and how they solve their issues to have a better understanding on how we might get the change we want in our own country. And the only way you can do that is by talking openly about them. Running around ignoring them won't change anything now will it?

*admittedly we don't have a lot of awful ones, but there is an abortion discussion right now which is pretty idiotic and of course the terrorist attack we had not too long ago, murder is on the rise, so is violent crimes and so on.

Edit: Also isn't it pretty normal for those issues to also be discussed in national news? Without a positive spin on it, it isn't like a country is ignorant to it's own issues or don't look critically at them (there are off course quite a few exceptions to this statement)...

Edited 2014-02-03 01:32 (UTC)

I'm not anon. Never was.

And secondly, what do you think international news is? I watch Russian/Irish/French/German news discuss our problems all the time. And, as they're deliberately broadcasting to the U.S. on the free channels, I assume that they don't mind discussing America in front of Americans.

Do you think that all of Russia is unaware that we're discussing (and insulting) their security for the Olympics? Or judging their treatment of homosexuality?

Grow up.

It's a huge part of international politics to discuss problems right in front of the nation in question. It's accepted practice. That you want everyone you might conceivably meet in passing to conform to your very specific sensibilities is ridiculous, especially in regards to discussions of matters of public interest.

Edited 2014-02-03 01:26 (UTC)

No, you are SJW and you need to take your oversensitive Newspeak backside over to a forum that will cater to and cherish all of your self-righteous entitlement needs. Because you won't get that here!

applause.gif

...fandomsecrets and the internet is a global platform, people are not going to cater their conversations about other countries just to ease your fragile sensibilities.

I think there's a huge difference between saying you like your laws better regarding X specific point, here gun control, and saying so glad I don't live in your crappy hellhole of a country. The first strikes me as a conversational gambit regarding how a country is organized/run. The second is just rude and insensitive (but possibly sensible).

But then, I don't mind discussing How Things Work. Gun violence in the U.S. is a tangled thing that wouldn't necessarily be solved by stricter gun control laws, given how that's worked out in some of our larger cities. And in our smallest towns that are ages away from anything... including help.

I've been reading comparative gun control articles lately and it's definitely interesting to see that in some countries a lack of guns hasn't slowed anyone down. They've just switched to older, more common weapons - like knives/cleavers/etc. In another country, there was literally one gun for every three people but gun violence was practically nonexistent.

The articles were frustrating though because the authors sucked at the very basic skills of semi-objective observation, critical analysis, and comparing/contrasting. They were dudes talking about their holidays. I wish I knew what grants they had so I could try to steal them.

Gun violence has a mix of reasons among those: why people own guns, their attitude to gun safety, the availability to guns and off course how violent the country is in itself.

The thing I learnt about why there is less gun related crimes in some countries with high levels of gun ownership is pretty much based in the fact that most people in those countries buy guns for hunting or recreational activities, not for safety. It might not be the only reason, but I feel it is a pretty deciding factor. Also who gets to buy guns is one.

Also even if there is still violence in countries with fewer guns, it takes longer to kill people with a knife than with a gun so you get more injuries and less deaths. Then again you can kill quite a few people with a knife too, it just depends on the situation.

~~sorry, didn't mean to start an discussion, but gun control and so on is one of the things I find interesting.~~

why people own guns, their attitude to gun safety, the availability to guns and off course how violent the country is in itself.
I think the third one is changing because so many people can buy guns over the internet. (Although I'm not sure how that's affected by the U.S.'s extensive monitoring activities.)

is pretty much based in the fact that most people in those countries buy guns for hunting or recreational activities, not for safety.
It's a pretty huge generalization to say that all or even most Americans buy their guns for safety. In certain areas, that might be true. But I can think of huge swathes of the U.S. where guns are bought for hunting/recreation.

it takes longer to kill people with a knife than with a gun
I don't think so. Like you say, it depends on the overall situation but all it takes is one well-placed (or luckily placed) slash to kill someone. At the end of the day, spree in a crowd is still a spree in a crowd.

Yeah, but that lucky slash will only kill one person. The right gun could kill a dozen people in the same amount of time. So it does take longer to kill people with a knife than with a gun, since you have to get within stabbing distance of each person and then land that lucky stab each time, rather than mowing down an entire roomful of people in a few seconds.

You're making very different assumptions than I did. I stand by my statements - the knife-wielder is potentially as dangerous as the gun-toter.

...What assumptions? That a would-be murderer armed with a knife has to get within arm's reach of his victim(s), and can only kill people at the rate at which he can reach and stab them, and that if he were armed with a gun, he instead has the potential to kill as many people as he has bullets in a matter of seconds without taking a single step?

What assumptions were you making, then?

You don't get very many water-tower knifethrowers.

But I'm sure that the ones you get are quite memorable.

Touche.

The thing I learnt about why there is less gun related crimes in some countries with high levels of gun ownership is pretty much based in the fact that most people in those countries buy guns for hunting or recreational activities, not for safety.

This makes sense to me because the reason a person buys a gun will determine the kind of gun they buy. The sort of gun purchased for hunting or target-shooting isn't likely to be the kind that can be adapted for full-auto fire with a single simple (if illegal) modification. A more unwieldy weapon and a slower rate of fire means fewer deaths.

Yes, from my limited understanding, if they introduced gun controls now in the US it would just drive the problem underground and make it worse, because the saturation level is so high. If they'd done it a long time ago, perhaps.

Also, yes, levels of gun ownership do not equate directly to levels of gun crime.

In another country, there was literally one gun for every three people but gun violence was practically nonexistent.

Isn't that Switzerland? They still have conscription and everyone in the people's militia keeps their guns at home. But they all also undergo regular firearms training which is mandatory. Plus, their society is just more regulated than most other countries would tolerate. So it's complicated, on a country by country basis.

In my country (Northern Ireland) gun control is very strict because of our history, and I'm glad of it. The UK generally is strict on guns. In most of the UK, and in the south of Ireland, the police don't generally even carry firearms which a lot of Americans can hardly believe.

The articles were frustrating though because the authors sucked at the very basic skills of semi-objective observation, critical analysis, and comparing/contrasting. They were dudes talking about their holidays. I wish I knew what grants they had so I could try to steal them.

A big problem is that most of the people talking about this subject have vested interests, and are as you say, unprofessional in their approach. Also, the political stakes are so weighted. Would anyone even take notice of proper research?

If guns weren't a major improvement over the numerous much cheaper alternatives, there probably wouldn't be such a big market in guns.

You want to kill your spouse or your boss or a single random victim or yourself or even some celebrity, lack of a gun probably won't slow you down that much. You want to kill two dozen strangers in a shopping mall, lack of a gun is a bit more of a handicap. I'm not saying it's an absolute barrier -- there's always explosives, and in some cases arson. But mass stabbings are generally mostly injuries, not fatalities.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2588 ]

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...

Re: when was the last time you missed the point of something...