Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US killer guns, death and destruction thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by Creaking Door View Post
    Yes, that's the solution; build a big wall around the USA and throw out any racial group that has shot anybody...

    ...so, out go the African-Americans, the Hispanics, the Arabs and the Native-Americans (Custer's Last Stand)...

    ...only white people would be left.....because they've never shot anybody!
    And your defining line of white is what?

    You cannot say Caucasian, so where do YOU draw the geographical or political lines.
    A Latino is not white only to bigoted persons OR Latinos who deny their physical appearence.

    Comment


      #22
      Another great piece from Coates on the relationship between police and black America:

      Last month, the Obama administration accused Donald Trump of undercutting American legitimacy in the eyes of the world. Trump’s call to ban Muslims wasn’t just morally wrong, according to Vice President Joe Biden, it called “into question America’s status as the greatest democracy in the history of the world.” President Obama followed Biden by asserting that Trump’s rhetoric “doesn’t reflect our democratic ideals,” saying “it will make us less safe, fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims.” His point was simple—wanton discrimination in policy and rhetoric undercuts American legitimacy and fuels political extremism. This lesson is not limited to Donald Trump, and it applies as well abroad as it does at home.

      Last week, 25-year-old Micah Xavier Johnson murdered five police officers in Dallas. This abhorrent act of political extremism cannot be divorced from American history—recent or old. In black communities, the police departments have only enjoyed a kind of quasi-legitimacy. That is because wanton discrimination is definitional to the black experience, and very often it is law enforcement which implements that discrimination with violence. A community consistently subjected to violent discrimination under the law will lose respect for it, and act beyond it. When such actions stretch to mass murder it is horrific. But it is also predictable.

      To understand the lack of police legitimacy in black communities, consider the contempt in which most white Americans hold O.J. Simpson. Consider their feelings toward the judge and jury in the case. And then consider that this is approximately how black people have felt every few months for generations. It’s not just that the belief that Officer Timothy Loehmann got away with murdering a 12-year-old Tamir Rice, it is the reality that police officers have been getting away with murdering black people since the advent of American policing. The injustice compounds, congeals until there is an almost tangible sense of dread and grievance that compels a community to understand the police as objects of fear, not respect.

      What does it mean, for instance, that black children are ritually told that any stray movement in the face of the police might result in their own legal killing? When Eric Holder spoke about getting “The Talk” from his father, and then giving it to his own son, many of us nodded our heads. But many more of us were terrified. When the nation’s top cop must warn his children to be skeptical of his own troops, how legitimate can the police actually be?

      [....]

      In the black community, it’s the force they deploy, and not any higher American ideal, that gives police their power. This is obviously dangerous for those who are policed. Less appreciated is the danger illegitimacy ultimately poses to those who must do the policing. For if the law represents nothing but the greatest force, then it really is indistinguishable from any other street gang. And if the law is nothing but a gang, then it is certain that someone will resort to the kind of justice typically meted out to all other powers in the street.
      Originally posted by RpR View Post
      And your defining line of white is what?

      You cannot say Caucasian, so where do YOU draw the geographical or political lines.
      A Latino is not white only to bigoted persons OR Latinos who deny their physical appearence.
      Racism isn't about skin colour, never has been. Look at the Irish, who used to be discriminated against in the United States as well as here (Australia) and in England. Same with southern Europeans. In all cases racism is about creating hierarchies amongst peoples. To be "white" in the Anglo-American context doesn't mean to have white skin (not least of all because nobody has white skin) but rather it means to be part of a group of people that considers itself superior to all others. The definition of who is and isn't allowed to be white changes over time -- again, see the Irish and southern Europeans -- and other societies have their own forms of racism: their own hierarchies in which the politically dominant group places itself, inevitably, at the top. Skin colour is often a convenient marker by which the inferior other is identified and discriminated against, but is not essential to racism.
      Last edited by Rii; 25th September 2016, 08:53.

      Comment


        #23
        It's very much related to skin colour in India !

        Comment


          #24
          These ****heads got more then they bargained for.

          http://americanmilitarynews.com/2016...tesniperrifles

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by Rii View Post
            Racism isn't about skin colour, never has been. Look at the Irish, who used to be discriminated against in the United States as well as here (Australia) and in England. Same with southern Europeans. In all cases racism is about creating hierarchies amongst peoples. To be "white" in the Anglo-American context doesn't mean to have white skin (not least of all because nobody has white skin) but rather it means to be part of a group of people that considers itself superior to all others. The definition of who is and isn't allowed to be white changes over time -- again, see the Irish and southern Europeans -- and other societies have their own forms of racism: their own hierarchies in which the politically dominant group places itself, inevitably, at the top. Skin colour is often a convenient marker by which the inferior other is identified and discriminated against, but is not essential to racism.
            Racism
            noun
            noun: racism

            the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.


            You and a probably the whole political pile of humam debris in Washington should really read your dictionaries.
            Thre are only three races, period.

            The incoherent babbling of the word racism has pretty much made the word meaningless and pointless.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by RpR View Post
              Racism
              noun
              noun: racism

              the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.


              You and a probably the whole political pile of humam debris in Washington should really read your dictionaries.
              Thre are only three races, period.

              The incoherent babbling of the word racism has pretty much made the word meaningless and pointless.
              I'm sorry that the world doesn't conform to your simplistic 19th century view of things (tell me, are you into phrenology too?)

              The strange thing is that, as 'conservatives' are forever, and inexplicably, reminding us in the manner of a child stumbling upon an unexpected object, racism exists in other cultures as well. Yet your simplistic claim that there are only three races would erase the great majority of this racism and would indeed leave Caucasians as the undisputed masters of that ignoble realm, when the reality is altogether more complicated.

              Conservatives are a funny lot. Their worldview is (supposedly) all about tradition and preserving what is worthy about the past, yet most conservatism relies upon a studied ignorance, distortion or denial of that very history.

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by Rii View Post
                I'm sorry that the world doesn't conform to your simplistic 19th century view of things (tell me, are you into phrenology too?)

                The strange thing is that, as 'conservatives' are forever, and inexplicably, reminding us in the manner of a child stumbling upon an unexpected object, racism exists in other cultures as well. Yet your simplistic claim that there are only three races would erase the great majority of this racism and would indeed leave Caucasians as the undisputed masters of that ignoble realm, when the reality is altogether more complicated.

                Conservatives are a funny lot. Their worldview is (supposedly) all about tradition and preserving what is worthy about the past, yet most conservatism relies upon a studied ignorance, distortion or denial of that very history.
                Ignorance is bliss and your ignorance of the English language makes you a very happy person with a poor command of words.

                Now go find a dictionary look up the word bigotry and try to make your rhetoric at least resemble something that is intelligent.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by RpR View Post
                  And your defining line of white is what?

                  You cannot say Caucasian, so where do YOU draw the geographical or political lines.
                  A Latino is not white only to bigoted persons OR Latinos who deny their physical appearence.
                  You may have misunderstood the point of my post; what I was trying to say was that you cannot judge (or pre-judge) any particular race, nation, religion or ethnic group on the actions of a single individual or small group of individuals.

                  I don't have a 'defining line' of what white is, or Caucasian, or Latino, for that matter; I've never found myself in any situation that remotely required me to be able differentiate between people based on racial grounds (and in the United Kingdom such differentiation is, except on strictly medical grounds, probably illegal).

                  Geographical lines are much easier to follow, but again, aren't really suitable for discrimination; except legal discrimination.

                  Political lines? Take your pick, but keep it simple, people don't like to think too much. Like religion.
                  WA$.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Guns, Cops, and Race: RPR's three psychological pressure points -- the great American triumvirate.

                    (Where "Cops" can also be read as "Soldiers" and whilst acknowledging the presence of that fourth crucial element making up the American psyche: God)

                    And of course, each is related to the other. Where as a general rule police serve the interests of the powerful against the powerless, one only has to add the specific functions of the police in the context of American history:

                    (1) To aid in the displacement and murder of native Americans.
                    (2) To aid in the recapture and punishment of slaves.
                    (3) To protect (white) property owners against recriminations from the aggrieved other.

                    This is how one explains the otherwise inexplicable: that the crowd most devoted, in theory, to "freedom", "liberty", n' all those other high 'flown words, the crowd most vocally suspicious of the power of government, is the same crowd that, in practice, lines up again and again behind the authoritarian use of government force. The key question being: freedom for whom, and from what? The answer: freedom for the white man, from those who might hold him accountable for his crimes. These simple truths tell you all you need to know about policing in America today, and the "pro cop", "anti cop" divide.
                    Last edited by Rii; 27th September 2016, 01:50.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      http://bluelivesmatter.blue/pizza-hut-michael-grace-jr/

                      Comment


                        #31
                        I wonder what future armed-robbers will do now?

                        I suppose the 'moral of the story' is that the potential armed-robber will think twice about committing a crime, or at least, committing a crime while carrying a gun; so the streets will become safer for every law-abiding citizen (and more dangerous for every gun-carrying criminal)! I'm sure in some cases that will be true.

                        On the other hand, can you expect all potential armed-robbers to act so predictably and mend their ways? After all, in this case, you're dealing with a twenty-eight year old who thought the best way to improve his life involved holding-up a Pizza Hut with two accomplices; presumably he had no difficulty getting hold of a gun but how much cash could he expect to get from this one robbery (split three ways), not enough for any of them to 'retire' from their criminal careers, surely? Do you really want to trust your safety to the predictability of the decisions such an individual will make?

                        Of course, another armed-robber may decide that he's not going to take any chances when he robs the next Pizza Hut; he may just shoot the employees before they shoot him!

                        Maybe the thought of being shot will make our armed-robber nervous, assuming he wasn't already nervous, maybe he'll need a drink to calm his nerves, maybe he's taken drugs instead, or maybe he's just naturally jumpy? Do you really want to trust your safety to the predictability of the decisions such an individual will make?

                        Don't imagine that I have any sympathy for an armed-robber that gets himself shot; he hasn't really got anybody to blame but himself. I'm just saying that arming the law-abiding citizen may not have the overall desired effect on the decisions that the armed-criminal may make.
                        Last edited by Creaking Door; 5th November 2016, 03:25.
                        WA$.

                        Comment


                          #32
                          Originally posted by Creaking Door View Post
                          I wonder what future armed-robbers will do now?

                          I suppose the 'moral of the story' is that the potential armed-robber will think twice about committing a crime, or at least, committing a crime while carrying a gun; so the streets will become safer for every law-abiding citizen (and more dangerous for every gun-carrying criminal)! I'm sure in some cases that will be true.

                          On the other hand, can you expect all potential armed-robbers to act so predictably and mend their ways? After all, in this case, you're dealing with a twenty-eight year old who thought the best way to improve his life involved holding-up a Pizza Hut with two accomplices; presumably he had no difficulty getting hold of a gun but how much cash could he expect to get from this one robbery (split three ways), not enough for any of them to 'retire' from their criminal careers, surely? Do you really want to trust your safety to the predictability of the decisions such an individual will make?

                          Of course, another armed-robber may decide that he's not going to take any chances when he robs the next Pizza Hut; he may just shoot the employees before they shoot him!

                          Maybe the thought of being shot will make our armed-robber nervous, assuming he wasn't already nervous, maybe he'll need a drink to calm his nerves, maybe he's taken drugs instead, or maybe he's just naturally jumpy? Do you really want to trust your safety to the predictability of the decisions such an individual will make?

                          Don't imagine that I have any sympathy for an armed-robber that gets himself shot; he hasn't really got anybody to blame but himself. I'm just saying that arming the law-abiding citizen may not have the overall desired effect on the decisions that the armed-criminal may make.
                          What I think is sad is not who killed who but. that we have a society where a Pizza Hut employee needs to carry a gun?
                          We worry about trump? we should worry about America.

                          Comment


                            #33
                            'We' don't have a society where a Pizza Hut employee needs to carry a gun, or at least I (and I suspect you) don't...

                            ...America has a society where a Pizza Hut employee feels the need to carry a gun!

                            And the Pizza Hut employee wasn't breaking the law by carrying the gun was he?

                            Originally posted by hampden98 View Post
                            We should worry about America.
                            Why?

                            What is so special about the United States of America that needs our special concern? I mean, why aren't some of the longest and most passionate threads on this forum about the needless gun deaths in South Africa, or Brazil, or Mexico?

                            Why are we all so concerned about America, apart from the fact that American gun-deaths make the headlines here for no other reason that we share a common language and happen to have news-teams over there?

                            On the other hand we probably should worry about Donald Trump (or Hilary Clinton) becoming president; the United States of America, being the only true superpower in the world, will have an enormous influence on our security (primarily), our economy and our own international policy...

                            ...I doubt very much if Donald Trump becoming president will affect the need for the employees of my local Pizza Hut to carry a gun, or the likelihood of them being robbed by an armed criminal.
                            Last edited by Creaking Door; 6th November 2016, 20:47.
                            WA$.

                            Comment


                              #34
                              http://whotv.com/2016/11/03/suspect-...e-questioning/

                              Amusing to see people blaming Obama for their deaths, whereas if weapons hadn't been as accessible then maybe crazies wouldn't have access to them and these police officers wouldn't have been ambushed and...whatever.
                              So remember and spare a thought for all those alive at the moment but who will be dead by the end of the year: innocent and trusting children, family members shot by the gun freak relative who cannot handle life, those shot for kicks by the loon with the gun he just has to hear sing, those shot dead because those with a vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo are happy for nothing to change for the better.


                              If only something might change because of the election.

                              Comment


                                #35
                                Originally posted by Creaking Door View Post
                                What is so special about the United States of America that needs our special concern?

                                I mean, why aren't some of the longest and most passionate threads on this forum about the needless gun deaths in South Africa, or Brazil, or Mexico?
                                Because a couple of our American friends rise to the bait every time.

                                If our pointless blandishments went unanswered the thread would wither and die.

                                Moggy
                                "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

                                Comment


                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by Moggy C View Post
                                  Because a couple of our American friends rise to the bait every time.


                                  Moggy

                                  Steady on there, remember that "special" relationship.

                                  Originally posted by Creaking Door View Post

                                  What is so special about the United States of America that needs our special concern? I mean, why aren't some of the longest and most passionate threads on this forum about the needless gun deaths in South Africa, or Brazil, or Mexico?

                                  I would have thought that that was extremely self evident.

                                  Comment


                                    #37
                                    Is anything ever self evident?

                                    South Africa has always had gun crime, some of it may have been related to overthrowing the apartheid government and just carried on since the gun was there and the opportunity presented itself, etc etc. Lots of poverty, lots of unemployment and, conversely, lots of visible affluence too.
                                    Brazil would probably come under the heading of not a civilised country in the manner we would understand. I worked with a man who married a Brazilian girl and went out there for a while; lovely country, he said, lovely people (mostly), no prospects and little work - little wonder that the illegal lumber trade is such a major thing (cash in hand, no need to deal with the bureaucracy that is local government, loads of demand, etc). Very little chance for social progression, since no job no money so there are more illegal routes to assist. My colleague was with his brother-in-law at a petrol station when the car next to them was stolen - a man walked up to it, shot the driver at point blank, dragged the body out, got in and waited for the traffic to let him out like he had just filled up and not committed murder. The pair left as quick as they could because the police would detain everyone present and try to stick the killing on them, despite the lack of a gun or stolen vehicle: that was how it is. When I expressed shock at the tale my friend explained that it was how it was in Brazil - man has car, another has a gun. It happened to him with a pair of shoes, except that they knew he was a tourist so just waving the gun at him saved a bullet; as it was his shoes were the wrong size - they sized them up in front of him, but took them anyway to trade elsewhere. His advice was to never dress like you had money, not to have a phone, wallet, camera, or even a clean shirt when you go out. Those with money protect themselves, those without steal.
                                    Mexico has a big crime problem, mainly revolving around drugs.
                                    In common, all three have police corruption problems as well as major scale gang crime. Maybe America has similar problems but, and this is the clincher, America is supposed to be a civilised nation (ignoring elections) and yet it allows its citizens to arm themselves like it is still the wild west whereas South Africa, Brazil and Mexico have very little choice or ability.

                                    Comment


                                      #38
                                      Originally posted by Moggy C View Post
                                      Because a couple of our American friends rise to the bait every time.

                                      If our pointless blandishments went unanswered the thread would wither and die.

                                      Moggy
                                      You sir, are an ishy person.

                                      The reason I posted this was to see the reaction the story brought; I did not post it to show the need for armed self-defense. Other employees at other business of similar nature, have defended themselves and then been fired for defending themselves and those around them.

                                      I put that here because of the reaction of the criminals parents.
                                      It would seem illogical and rather moronic but as my sister lives in an area with persons who have similar illogical views of society, and the father of her first three children went to prison for armed robbery, I wanted to see how some in the U.K. would respond to such an attitude. ( He told me once those rich people do not need all that money and my sisters attitude back then in reality was really not all that different)


                                      The responses I got were pretty much as expected.
                                      Last edited by RpR; 10th November 2016, 21:07.

                                      Comment


                                        #39
                                        as RpR,

                                        US killer guns.

                                        Sounds like a B grade sci-fi movie.


                                        But there is real fear in USA, and I think caused by the general poor economy for lower middle class.
                                        Do17 recovery fund
                                        Since 2004 dedicated to researching Do-17, 1000+ period photos, manuals, history, technology to put aircraft in perspective.

                                        Comment


                                          #40
                                          A

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X