The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:38 am UTC

I think we should give military grade weaponry to two different groups:

1. People who the government doesn't think should have them
2. People who explicitly don't want guns or other weaponry

The results will partially balance each other out and the extent to which they don't will be very amusing.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:43 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:If it's any comfort, antibiotic resistant strains tend to be slightly weaker, due to the four F's of biology.
You are Wrong.
The four F's only apply to multicellular life forms.
Coyne wrote:U.K. man found to have gonorrhea resistant to conventional treatments

Researchers at Public Health England have announced, as reported by the BBC, that a U.K. man has contracted a case of gonorrhea that is resistant to the two types of antibiotics that are normally used to treat such infections. It is, they further report, the first known instance of a case where a strain of the bacteria has developed resistance to both treatments.

The team treating the infected man has reported that another antibiotic, ertapenem, is now being used—it is considered a last-line-of-defense antibiotic. Thus far, it seems to be working, but the researchers will not know for sure until sometime next month.


N-1 antibiotics down, 1 to go.
Guns are interesting.
I think carrying one is a huge Pain in the Ass.

Bactria have, in the past, killed more people than guns.
Here is a quick refresher on Antibiotic Resistance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbcwi7SfZE

Imagine a world where you are so weak from illness you can not lift a gun.
Leave loading and firing the stupid thing more than once.

How will the Reign of ManKind end?
Illness or destruction of the atmosphere?

Is there another highly likely end?
Both?! We Can Do It!! Yes, we can.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:32 am UTC

addams wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:If it's any comfort, antibiotic resistant strains tend to be slightly weaker, due to the four F's of biology.
You are Wrong.
The four F's only apply to multicellular life forms.


Not exactly, the same principles still apply. Energy used by the bacterium to protect itself against antibiotics is energy not available for growth and reproduction.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:04 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That's....not the right way to do it at all.

If you dropped in functioning, you'd have a decent modern approximation. Well functioning militia being essential.

Which, in fairness, if we use the term militia in the sense of the time, only really included men, and may have only included white men, depending on state, etc...but later amendments fixed the constitutions shortcomings in those regards.

I misunderstood what you meant when you said "met regularly". You meant "usual; normal; customary" rather than literal "met regularly." But this meaning doesn't fit any better than the clumsy phrase I inserted above, and all because of that inconvenient word "well."

(I admit the word "functioning" fits grammatically, but if they meant functioning, why didn't they just say functioning? I think that is even more fanciful than "regularly.")

The base meaning of "regulate" is "to control". If you go back and read the other Constitutional phrases again, you will find that "control" (perhaps with plural -s or suffix -ing) fits perfectly in every one.

James Madison had been military, was an experienced legislator, was a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, and introduced the Second Amendment as a senator of the new Congress. He sure as hell knew what "regulate" meant when he was at the convention. I find it very difficult to believe that he came up with, or would have supported, such a creative different use of the word, to avoid regulation of this citizen militia he proposed to arm.

Or anyone else involved in authoring the Second Amendment.

But... there... must... be... no... damned... control...! And so that inconvenient word in the Second Amendment just MUST have some other meaning.
In all fairness...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:07 pm UTC

Coyne wrote:I misunderstood what you meant when you said "met regularly". You meant "usual; normal; customary" rather than literal "met regularly." But this meaning doesn't fit any better than the clumsy phrase I inserted above, and all because of that inconvenient word "well."


Someone else said "met regularly". It's sort of similar, but it's not exactly the same.

(I admit the word "functioning" fits grammatically, but if they meant functioning, why didn't they just say functioning? I think that is even more fanciful than "regularly.")


Language is weird, and popular words from one era may not be popular in another. The constitution simply doesn't use the word "functioning". Keep in mind that back in this time, spelling wasn't even nearly as standardized as it is today, and was typical then drifted until now. Spelling choose as "chuse", or putting only one n in Pennsylvania would be really weird today, but at the time, it just wasn't.

The base meaning of "regulate" is "to control". If you go back and read the other Constitutional phrases again, you will find that "control" (perhaps with plural -s or suffix -ing) fits perfectly in every one.

James Madison had been military, was an experienced legislator, was a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, and introduced the Second Amendment as a senator of the new Congress. He sure as hell knew what "regulate" meant when he was at the convention. I find it very difficult to believe that he came up with, or would have supported, such a creative different use of the word, to avoid regulation of this citizen militia he proposed to arm.

Or anyone else involved in authoring the Second Amendment.

But... there... must... be... no... damned... control...! And so that inconvenient word in the Second Amendment just MUST have some other meaning.


Why that assumption? If they wanted it controlled, who did they want it controlled by? That's a quite major error, and does not occur elsewhere. Discussing who had the rights to what is literally the purpose of this, and the only entity mentioned here is "the people". It can't reasonably be a right that is assigned to another entity.

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

Look, at the time, the concept of "natural rights" was popular. The idea hailed from france, and is referenced pretty frequently, the whole affair basically stems from a belief that legal rights must recognize natural rights. That's why they felt their tiff with England was justified, and the Constitution was largely a reaction to the Revolution. That's why we have rights like the 4th amendment that honestly would probably not be worried about a great deal if it were written now. It was straight up a reaction to English practices. Disarming people was, obviously, something the English did, so of course the Constitution contains a "yeah, we were right about this" bit. Of COURSE the winners thought they were morally in the right.

Plus, the guy corresponded with Jefferson, who was a bit of a firebrand. So, clearly, he had a pretty good idea of if folks wanted a right to bear arms.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

So, yeah, I think he had a pretty good idea what he was writing about, and the topic of what, exactly James Madison was referring to is pretty plain. Who is this militia?

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Look, it's "the body of the people". The language is extraordinarily similar to the second amendment, it's just somewhat expanded. It explains a touch further why a militia is necessary, and the right is parsed out to be clearly independent of anything else. It is clear that is primary interest is in protecting the right(and feels its existence is essential to national defense), not in assigning control over militias to a specific entity.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:06 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
addams wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:If it's any comfort, antibiotic resistant strains tend to be slightly weaker, due to the four F's of biology.
You are Wrong.
The four F's only apply to multicellular life forms.


Not exactly, the same principles still apply. Energy used by the bacterium to protect itself against antibiotics is energy not available for growth and reproduction.
You did not watch the refresher.
And; I'm guessing, you did not take Microbiology.

Some of those little Bastards use Antibiotics as Food!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:40 pm UTC

And when you don't add antibiotics? They are a less efficient killing machine. Antibiotic resistance is like a human being born with a defective immune system that makes them immune to HIV. Great if in an HIV prone area, but otherwise a detriment. Pretty much the reason why a eugenic program is doomed; we would all choose the supergenes that made us all tall greeneyed powerlifters with full heads of flowing locks with giant/small genitals, only to find that none of us are immune to a new disease and whoops, no more humans.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5825
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Angua » Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:48 pm UTC

I'm really confused where this attitude has come from? Like, they might not do as well in a petri dish against non-resistant bugs but people still die from antibiotic resistant organisms.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:04 pm UTC

Searching for the little bit of solace?

Mostly I'm tired of hearing the term "superbug". It's a misconception.

cphite
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby cphite » Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:28 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Mostly I'm tired of hearing the term "superbug". It's a misconception.


Indeed, a more appropriate term would be "super-villain bug"...

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7516
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zamfir » Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:07 am UTC

It was only named that way in the US, in other markets it was the VW 1302.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby commodorejohn » Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:37 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:It was only named that way in the US, in other markets it was the VW 1302.

Oh, well-played.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:29 pm UTC

I had a nightmare last night (for real, I thought about reporting it in Sleepy-Time Holodeck, but it's not really fodder for that) that mass shootings, sometimes more than one, were happening every day. It got so bad that, despite the screams of outrage, the Second Amendment was repealed.

Then I found this. In 2018, March and April, 20 mass shootings; 13 dead and 83 injured. That's 38 days so far, so one every other day.
In all fairness...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:01 am UTC

New idea for a black comedy. A guy repeatedly tries to get on the news for a shooting and thus the 15 minutes of fame before death, only to constantly be upstaged by a bigger shooting.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Dauric » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:26 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:New idea for a black comedy. A guy repeatedly tries to get on the news for a shooting and thus the 15 minutes of fame before death, only to constantly be upstaged by a bigger shooting.


I'm not convinced that mass shootings are about "15 minutes of fame". Most often these incidents result in the death of the perpetrator. I'm more of the opinion that it's a form of suicide while screaming "you didn't help me". Most of these incidents after the fact (20-20 hindsight and all) include a string of events that would fit a pattern of distress and the proverbial 'cries for help'.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:48 am UTC

Dauric wrote:I'm not convinced that mass shootings are about "15 minutes of fame". Most often these incidents result in the death of the perpetrator. I'm more of the opinion that it's a form of suicide while screaming "you didn't help me". Most of these incidents after the fact (20-20 hindsight and all) include a string of events that would fit a pattern of distress and the proverbial 'cries for help'.

I tend to agree. While it's egoism of the highest order either way, feels to me like it's typically rooted in anger and bitterness rather than vanity.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:08 am UTC

Coyne wrote:I had a nightmare last night (for real, I thought about reporting it in Sleepy-Time Holodeck, but it's not really fodder for that) that mass shootings, sometimes more than one, were happening every day. It got so bad that, despite the screams of outrage, the Second Amendment was repealed.

Then I found this. In 2018, March and April, 20 mass shootings; 13 dead and 83 injured. That's 38 days so far, so one every other day.


There's also this crowd-sources archive, which lists 427 of them in 2017, backed up by the November article saying 307 "so far" in 2017.

Also gunpolicy.org will supply enough numbers to turn your scroll bar into a dot.
Spoiler:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2016: 38,658
2015: 36,247
2014: 33,599
2013: 33,636
2012: 33,563
2011: 32,351
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

In the United States, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2016: 11.96
2015: 11.30
2014: 10.54
2013: 10.63
2012: 10.69
2011: 10.38
2010: 10.26
2009: 10.22
2008: 10.39
2007: 10.37
2006: 10.35
2005: 10.39
2004: 10.10
2003: 10.39
2002: 10.51
2001: 10.38
2000: 10.19
1999: 10.35

In the United States, annual homicides by any means total

2016: 19,103
2015: 17,525
2014: 15,809
2013: 16,121
2012: 16,688
2011: 16,238
2010: 16,259
2009: 16,799
2008: 17,826
2007: 18,361
2006: 18,573
2005: 18,124
2004: 17,357
2003: 17,732
2002: 17,638
2001: 20,308
2000: 16,765
1999: 16,889
1998: 14,276
1997: 18,208
1996: 19,645
1995: 21,606

In the United States, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2016: 5.91
2015: 5.46
2014: 4.96
2013: 5.09
2012: 5.31
2011: 5.21
2010: 5.27
2009: 5.48
2008: 5.86
2007: 6.10
2006: 6.22
2005: 6.13
2004: 5.93
2003: 6.11
2002: 6.13
2001: 7.13
2000: 5.96
1999: 6.05
1998: 5.19
1997: 6.7
1996: 7.3
1995: 8.1
1993: 9.93

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2016: 14,41520
2015: 12,974
2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
1998: 9,257

In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population36 is

2016: 4.46
2015: 4.04
2014: 3.43
2013: 3.54
2012: 3.70
2011: 3.55
2010: 3.59
2009: 3.75
2008: 4.01
2007: 4.19
2006: 4.29
2005: 4.18
2004: 3.97
2003: 4.11
2002: 4.11
2001: 3.98
2000: 3.84
1999: 3.88
1998: 3.37
1993: 7.07

In the United States, the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm is reported to be

2012: 60%
2011: 69.6%
2010: 68.1%
2009: 68.4%
2008: 68.3%
2007: 68.8%
2006: 68.9%
2005: 68.2%
2004: 67.0%
2003: 67.2%
2002: 67.1%
2001: 55.9%
2000: 64.4%
1999: 64.1%
1998: 65.9%
1997: 68.0%
1996: 68.0%
1995: 69.0%
1994: 71.4%
1993: 71.2%

In the United States, according to figures from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), annual handgun homicides total

2014: 5,562
2013: 5,782
2012: 6,404
2011: 6,251
2010: 6,115
2009: 6,501
2008: 6,800
2007: 7,398
2006: 7,836
2005: 7,565
2004: 7,286
2003: 7,745
2002: 7,294
2001: 6,931
2000: 6,778
1999: 6,658

In the United States, according to figures from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the annual rate of handgun homicide per 100,000 population is

2014: 1.74
2013: 1.83
2012: 2.04
2011: 2.01
2010: 1.98
2009: 2.12
2008: 2.24
2007: 2.46
2006: 2.63
2005: 2.56
2004: 2.49
2003: 2.67
2002: 2.54
2001: 2.43
2000: 2.40
1999: 2.39

In the United States, according to figures from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), annual long gun homicides total

2014: 510
2013: 593
2012: 608
2011: 694
2010: 733
2009: 774
2008: 822
2007: 910
2006: 928
2005: 967
2004: 910
2003: 846
2002: 974
2001: 897
2000: 896
1999: 931

In the United States, according to figures from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the annual rate of long gun homicide per 100,000 population is

2014: 0.16
2013: 0.19
2012: 0.19
2011: 0.22
2010: 0.24
2009: 0.25
2008: 0.27
2007: 0.30
2006: 0.31
2005: 0.33
2004: 0.31
2003: 0.29
2002: 0.34
2001: 0.31
2000: 0.32
1999: 0.33

In the United States, annual unintentional shooting deaths total

2016: 489
2015: 485
2014: 586
2013: 505
2012: 548
2011: 591
2010: 606
2009: 554
2008: 592
2007: 613
2006: 642
2005: 789
2004: 649
2003: 730
2002: 762
2001: 802
2000: 776
1999: 824

In the United States, the annual rate of unintentional shooting death per 100,000 population is

2016: 0.15
2015: 0.15
2014: 0.18
2013: 0.16
2012: 0.17
2011: 0.19
2010: 0.20
2009: 0.18
2008: 0.19
2007: 0.20
2006: 0.22
2005: 0.27
2004: 0.22
2003: 0.25
2002: 0.26
2001: 0.28
2000: 0.28
1999: 0.30
1993: 0.59

In the United States, annual legal-intervention gun homicides total

2013: 681
2012: 686
2011: 610
2010: 632
2009: 629
2008: 592
2007: 597
2006: 578
2005: 535
2004: 587
2003: 616
2002: 574
2001: 599
2000: 473
1999: 500
1998: 563
1997: 646
1996: 617
1995: 657

In the United States, the annual rate of legal-intervention gun homicide per 100,000 population is

2013: 0.22
2012: 0.22
2011: 0.20
2010: 0.20
2009: 0.21
2008: 0.19
2007: 0.20
2006: 0.19
2005: 0.18
2004: 0.20
2003: 0.21
2002: 0.20
2001: 0.21
2000: 0.17
1999: 0.18
1998: 0.20
1997: 0.24
1996: 0.23
1995: 0.25

In the United States, the annual number of non-fatal firearm injuries is

2013: 84,258
2012: 81,396
2011: 73,883
2010: 73,505
2009: 66,769
2008: 78,622
2007: 69,863
2006: 71,417
2005: 69,825
2004: 64,389
2003: 65,834
2002: 58,841
2001: 63,012

In the United States, the annual rate of non-fatal firearm injury per 100,000 population is

2013: 26.65
2012: 25.93
2011: 23.71
2010: 23.81
2009: 21.76
2008: 25.85
2007: 23.19
2006: 23.93
2005: 23.63
2004: 21.99
2003: 22.69
2002: 20.46
2001: 22.11

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United Kingdom is

2010: 2,373,186
2009: 2,361,668
2006: 2,250,085
2005: 2,256,119

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) per 100 people in the United Kingdom is

2010: 3.78
2009: 3.80
2006: 3.70
2005: 3.74

In the United Kingdom, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2013: 144
2012: 131
2011: 146
2010: 165
2009: 150
2008: 174
2007: 130
2006: 211
2005: 162
2004: 156
2003: 163
2002: 169
2001: 156
2000: 234
1999: 212
1998: 196
1997: 187
1996: 247

In the United Kingdom, annual homicides by any means total

2012: 653
2011: 765
2010: 712
2009: 765
2008: 879
2007: 856
2006: 832
2005: 958
2004: 914
2003: 1,112
2002: 958
2001: 919
1999: 828

In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2012: 1.03
2011: 1.21
2010: 1.14
2009: 1.24
2008: 1.42
2007: 1.41
2006: 1.38
2005: 1.60
2004: 1.53
2003: 1.87
2002: 1.62
2001: 1.56
1999: 1.41

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Sweden is

2011: 1,980,000
2005: 2,800,000

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) per 100 people in Sweden is

2011: 20.83
2005: 31.64

In Sweden, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2014: 154
2013: 125
2012: 141
2011: 135
2010: 138
2009: 157
2008: 138
2007: 135
2006: 139
2005: 137
2004: 156
2003: 141
2002: 192
2001: 164
2000: 169
1999: 188
1998: 167
1997: 169
1996: 177

In Sweden, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2014: 1.58
2013: 1.30
2012: 1.47
2011: 1.42
2010: 1.47
2009: 1.68
2008: 1.49
2007: 1.47
2006: 1.52
2005: 1.51
2004: 1.72
2003: 1.56
2002: 2.14
2001: 1.83
2000: 1.89
1999: 2.11
1998: 1.88
1997: 1.90
1996: 1.99

In Sweden, annual homicides by any means total

2012: 68
2011: 81
2010: 91
2009: 87
2008: 77
2007: 107
2006: 88
2005: 79
2004: 107
2003: 85
2002: 101
2001: 87
2000: 96
1999: 99
1998: 93
1997: 91
1996: 97
1995: 83

In Sweden, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2012: 0.7
2011: 0.9
2010: 1.0
2009: 0.9
2008: 0.8
2007: 1.2
2006: 1.0
2005: 0.9
2004: 1.2
2003: 1.0
2002: 1.1
2001: 1.0
2000: 1.1
1999: 1.1
1998: 1.1
1997: 1.0
1996: 1.1
1995: 0.9
1993: 1.30

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Switzerland is

2016: 2,000,000
2005: 3,400,000

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) per 100 people in Switzerland is

2016: 24.45
2005: 45.72

In Switzerland, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2013: 241
2012: 220
2011: 239
2010: 241
2009: 277
2008: 259
2007: 291
2006: 285
2005: 299
2004: 318
2003: 339
2002: 397
2001: 408
2000: 387
1999: 392
1998: 466
1997: 434
1996: 454
1995: 436

In Switzerland, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2013: 3.01
2012: 2.78
2011: 3.04
2010: 3.10
2009: 3.60
2008: 3.40
2007: 3.86
2006: 3.81
2005: 4.01
2004: 4.29
2003: 4.59
2002: 5.40
2001: 5.58
2000: 5.32
1999: 5.41
1998: 6.46
1997: 6.03
1996: 6.32
1995: 6.09

In Switzerland, annual homicides by any means total

2015: 57
2014: 41
2013: 57
2012: 45
2011: 46
2010: 53
2009: 51
2008: 54
2007: 51
2006: 60
2005: 75
2004: 79
2003: 73
2002: 86
2001: 86
2000: 69
1999: 89
1998: 76
1997: 87
1996: 83
1995: 82

In Switzerland, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2015: 0.70
2014: 0.51
2013: 0.71
2012: 0.57
2011: 0.59
2010: 0.68
2009: 0.66
2008: 0.71
2007: 0.68
2006: 0.80
2005: 1.01
2004: 1.07
2003: 0.99
2002: 1.17
2001: 1.2
2000: 1.0
1999: 1.2
1998: 1.1
1997: 1.2
1996: 1.2
1995: 1.2
1994: 1.32
Note that the data end before Trump took office.

US pistol homicides outnumber long gun homicides by around 10 to 1, because pistols are light, compact and concealable and you can't routine-carry an M14, Benelli M4, L86A2, M243 or other long gun vastly more effective than a 5-shot hammerless double-action-only .38 Sp revolver with a 2" barrel and low-profile sights. Dr Andreas Grabinsky said handgun shootings are more interesting to an anaesthesiologist, because when someone comes into the hospital after being shot with a rifle, there's nothing for an anaesthesiologist to do. So of course we ban the gas-operated, semi-automatic, 5.56mm rifle with a 20" barrel and a detachable box magazine, but not the gas-operated, semi-automatic, 5.56mm rifle with a 20" barrel and a detachable box magazine.

Switzerland's rather high ratio of gun deaths to homicides by any means is largely due to a very high firearm suicide rate.

Blah1.png

Blah2.png
Blah3.png
Blah4.png
Blah5.png
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6327
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:01 pm UTC

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43673331

Black 16 year old sentenced to 65 years in prison for his accomplice being shot and killed by police.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5825
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Angua » Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:41 pm UTC

Seems legit :roll:
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Chen
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:57 pm UTC

Pretty standard Felony murder. Realistically this should apply to some of these and not others. The example in the article of someone dying from a heart attack after getting mugged seems reasonable to me. For an accomplice I'd think the standard would need to be something like "would the initial crime have occurred if this accomplice wasn't present". I imagine it's hard to determine who the "ring leader" is in most cases which is why they just go with the blanket definitions for felony murder.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5825
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Angua » Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:20 pm UTC

And yet, the fact that the person is 16 (and was 15 when the crime occured in a crime with older youths), has no bearing on this whatsoever.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Chen
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:24 pm UTC

Angua wrote:And yet, the fact that the person is 16 (and was 15 when the crime occured in a crime with older youths), has no bearing on this whatsoever.


Yes that's another problematic aspect of this. Or well youth being tried as adults in general.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3723
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:03 pm UTC

Naively (not to be applied to specific examples, just working with the whole scope as given), I would assume that the more correct way to approach such 'murder'-by-proxy would be "conspiracy to <foo>". Lend a car to someone you know will commit a crime, you are assisting/encouraging that crime (and that crime only, no conspiracy to murder if your reasonable expectations were that those you helped would 'only' demand money with menaces, etc).

This youth, in particular, was running with a gang who may or may not have been willing to murder in their own right (conspiracy to 'attempted murder', or however that words itself, could perhaps be proven if he was willing to go all the way with them and not just drawn into the escapade by unwise association) but the killing that occurred was surely not an intention of his association (unlike shouting "look out, officers, my friend there has a gun!"?) only really the housebreaking/trespass/other crimes for which the police attended for them to make the decision to open fire - and that layer of the intent-to-kill has already been arbitrated as far as the armed response officers, before we even get to the age/colour of the convicted person.

Needless to say, IANAL, and it carries onwards that I'm not an American one in particular. Localised legislative kludging (intentional or merely piecemeal through patches applied to cover perceived laxness gaps in law) probably defeats an attempt to use common-sense, even before punitive systemic malice gets a chance to interfere with the saner versions of the judgement.

(Also, mitigating/the-opposite-of-mitigating facts may indicate other reasons why they found it necessary to throw this particular volume of the book at him. A multi-recidivist minor, committing many other crimes just below the boundaries set by the system as appropriate to his age, could have been far from innocent. They maybe effectively pulled an Al Capone on him, or a perverse variation thereof, to stymie his 'career trajectory' into bigger leagues of crime. It's just a possibility worth mentioning for completeness, and I'm not trying to excuse the way things went by invoking the "bad hombres" fallacy. Chances are much more that it is a derailint, rather than a rerailing, of natural justice.)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:13 pm UTC

Could we just have a rule that makes it illegal to try underage people as adults? Like, set it as the same as the age of consent, i.e., if AOC is 16 can not try anyone under 16 as an adult?

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1973
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Grop » Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:45 pm UTC

In my view, such an age shouldn't be lower than the age for voting or buying alcohol.

Chen
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:27 pm UTC

I'm not sure why there's blanket distinctions between "adult" court and "youth" court to begin with. Why not just consider age as a factor during the trial? You can keep the special anonymity that youth defendants get but that hardly needs an entirely new court system.

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:08 am UTC

NFL player Trevor Davis has been charged with making "criminal threats" after joking about explosives at airport security in Los Angeles.

"Trevor Davis checked in at the Hawaiian Airlines ticket counter and was asked the usual questions about whether he was carrying any aerosol cans, knives, weapons or explosives," Los Angeles Airport Police spokesman Rob Pedregon told ESPN.

"Davis turned to his female companion and asked if she remembered to pack the explosives. He was then taken into custody and booked.

"We are in the process of gathering more information and will refrain from making any further comment as it is an ongoing legal matter," the Packers said.

Totally not security theatre. Life continues as normal, the terrorists have not won. No sir-ee!

USA! USA!

link

(Part of me wonders if the same response would have occurred had he been a middle-aged white guy in a suit. Heck, all of me wonders that...)

Chen
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:43 pm UTC

Was this always just an urban legend or something? I remember my parents telling me when I was a small kid to never joke about things like guns or explosives at airports because they will get you in trouble. I tried a quick google search but clearly the first 4 pages are all still about the article you just mentioned so I'm not finding anything from the past very easily.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:40 pm UTC

Grop wrote:In my view, such an age shouldn't be lower than the age for voting or buying alcohol.

In the US, it's a little bizarre even if you try to use that age, because "old enough to have completed basic training and specialisation training and served a tour in Iraq" is not necessarily "old enough to buy alcohol," even if it's the only PTSD medication you can afford.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1973
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Grop » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:48 pm UTC

One can also find a few articles* from 2003 about that guy named Philippe Rivere who worked for Air France and made a joke about his shoes in New York.

* alas, google insists that I am only interested in French language results such as this one. Of course it may have made the news here mostly because he was French.

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby dg61 » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Coyne wrote:I misunderstood what you meant when you said "met regularly". You meant "usual; normal; customary" rather than literal "met regularly." But this meaning doesn't fit any better than the clumsy phrase I inserted above, and all because of that inconvenient word "well."


Someone else said "met regularly". It's sort of similar, but it's not exactly the same.

(I admit the word "functioning" fits grammatically, but if they meant functioning, why didn't they just say functioning? I think that is even more fanciful than "regularly.")


Language is weird, and popular words from one era may not be popular in another. The constitution simply doesn't use the word "functioning". Keep in mind that back in this time, spelling wasn't even nearly as standardized as it is today, and was typical then drifted until now. Spelling choose as "chuse", or putting only one n in Pennsylvania would be really weird today, but at the time, it just wasn't.

The base meaning of "regulate" is "to control". If you go back and read the other Constitutional phrases again, you will find that "control" (perhaps with plural -s or suffix -ing) fits perfectly in every one.

James Madison had been military, was an experienced legislator, was a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, and introduced the Second Amendment as a senator of the new Congress. He sure as hell knew what "regulate" meant when he was at the convention. I find it very difficult to believe that he came up with, or would have supported, such a creative different use of the word, to avoid regulation of this citizen militia he proposed to arm.

Or anyone else involved in authoring the Second Amendment.

But... there... must... be... no... damned... control...! And so that inconvenient word in the Second Amendment just MUST have some other meaning.


Why that assumption? If they wanted it controlled, who did they want it controlled by? That's a quite major error, and does not occur elsewhere. Discussing who had the rights to what is literally the purpose of this, and the only entity mentioned here is "the people". It can't reasonably be a right that is assigned to another entity.

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

Look, at the time, the concept of "natural rights" was popular. The idea hailed from france, and is referenced pretty frequently, the whole affair basically stems from a belief that legal rights must recognize natural rights. That's why they felt their tiff with England was justified, and the Constitution was largely a reaction to the Revolution. That's why we have rights like the 4th amendment that honestly would probably not be worried about a great deal if it were written now. It was straight up a reaction to English practices. Disarming people was, obviously, something the English did, so of course the Constitution contains a "yeah, we were right about this" bit. Of COURSE the winners thought they were morally in the right.

Plus, the guy corresponded with Jefferson, who was a bit of a firebrand. So, clearly, he had a pretty good idea of if folks wanted a right to bear arms.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

So, yeah, I think he had a pretty good idea what he was writing about, and the topic of what, exactly James Madison was referring to is pretty plain. Who is this militia?

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Look, it's "the body of the people". The language is extraordinarily similar to the second amendment, it's just somewhat expanded. It explains a touch further why a militia is necessary, and the right is parsed out to be clearly independent of anything else. It is clear that is primary interest is in protecting the right(and feels its existence is essential to national defense), not in assigning control over militias to a specific entity.


I feel like you have good points but some clarifications and emendations are in order:

1) Disarmament was contrary also to English practice; the English Bill of Rights stipulated that all men had the right to be armed in self-defense and legal commentaries considered this a natural right.

2) The key element is not really armament or disarmament per se but the question of the common defense. The framers of the constitution consistently framed it in terms of the right to maintain a militia and the preference for a militia over a standing army. See for example the Virginia declaration of rights:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power"

And the Pennsylvania declaration of rights:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."'

See also the original draft of the amendment, which makes explicit the reasoning behind it: "http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html". The deliberations discuss both the reason for the proposal.

So it is clear that the amendment was based on 1) the general right to defend oneself and more importantly 2) a strong preference in favor of a militia rather than a standing army, being considered dangerous to liberty. Now this is still a contextual right, and we should note along with this that court findings have consistently _not_ show this an unlimited right(U.S. V. Miller, finding that a weapon with no actual relation to " a well regulated militia" was not at all protected, D.C. V. Heller, which while it strikes down a handgun ban and is seen as a strongly pro-second amendment explicitly considers cases where it is within the government's purview to restrict firearm ownership.

So on the one hand the text and meaning of the amendment is clear. On the other hand, history has clearly shown that it is based on changed circumstances. The standing army, the founder's bane, is an established fact and has largely replaced the milita that even during the Revolutionary War was generally seen as at best useless and at worst actively bad militarily. Likewise, the government even under the founders did not tolerate all insurrection(see: Whiskey Rebellion) and even a unrestricted reading of the second amendment suggests some parameters on a "Regulated militia"-it must train, it must have some kind of sanction or authority, it should be called out only by the government if practicable, and so on. Not also the recent op-ed of former justice Stevens explicitly calling out Heller for questionable logic.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:46 am UTC

dg61 wrote:I feel like you have good points but some clarifications and emendations are in order:

1) Disarmament was contrary also to English practice; the English Bill of Rights stipulated that all men had the right to be armed in self-defense and legal commentaries considered this a natural right.


Disarmament happened in the Revolutionary era, to Americans. The whole Concord tiff was literally because they were coming to take weapons away from revolutionary elements, and they didn't want to give them up.

Sure, I'll grant that England may have been generally okay with Englishmen having arms, but the colonists were quite put out that they were not accorded what they felt was their right. It seems quite plain that they didn't want this to happen again, and given the context of the situation, we're definitely talking about stuff up to including weapons of war, not mere hunting pieces(cannon were included among the arms fought over, though small arms were also a part of it)

2) The key element is not really armament or disarmament per se but the question of the common defense. The framers of the constitution consistently framed it in terms of the right to maintain a militia and the preference for a militia over a standing army. See for example the Virginia declaration of rights:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power"

And the Pennsylvania declaration of rights:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."'

See also the original draft of the amendment, which makes explicit the reasoning behind it: "http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html". The deliberations discuss both the reason for the proposal.

So it is clear that the amendment was based on 1) the general right to defend oneself and more importantly 2) a strong preference in favor of a militia rather than a standing army, being considered dangerous to liberty. Now this is still a contextual right, and we should note along with this that court findings have consistently _not_ show this an unlimited right(U.S. V. Miller, finding that a weapon with no actual relation to " a well regulated militia" was not at all protected, D.C. V. Heller, which while it strikes down a handgun ban and is seen as a strongly pro-second amendment explicitly considers cases where it is within the government's purview to restrict firearm ownership.


Oh sure, defense of the country is definitely a major factor in addition to defense of one's self. They were indeed very touchy about standing armies(the 4th is an excellent demonstration of that), and modern views on that have relaxed a great deal...but we still have a pretty sharp separation between military and police powers as a result, and that's probably for the best. The militia may play a somewhat lesser role in the modern era, but it does still come up when the US is engaged in protracted war. The organized militia(National Guard, etc) gets deployed a good deal, and the unorganized militia is subject to the draft, and firearm proficiency can prove useful for military service. It's pretty common for snipers to have extensive pre-military firearm experience, for example.

We do have a few historical oddities. Draft being not wholly equal, the militia logic tends not to apply to women or the elderly by a strict reading. However, given general pro-equality changes to the constitution, holding that say, men have a right that women do not seems deeply contrary to the principles of equality and natural rights. A historical inequity in the draft ought not be used to deny some folks rights. Anyways, it's not as if women or the elderly are exactly high-crime demographics. So, on a practical basis, such a differentiation would also appear unjustified.

In modern times, the self defense argument gets a little more play than the more historical argument. The idea of the US being invaded is...not usually considered an urgent danger today. It could happen, I think, but the idea of someone breaking into your home has more immediacy as a scenario.

So on the one hand the text and meaning of the amendment is clear. On the other hand, history has clearly shown that it is based on changed circumstances. The standing army, the founder's bane, is an established fact and has largely replaced the milita that even during the Revolutionary War was generally seen as at best useless and at worst actively bad militarily. Likewise, the government even under the founders did not tolerate all insurrection(see: Whiskey Rebellion) and even a unrestricted reading of the second amendment suggests some parameters on a "Regulated militia"-it must train, it must have some kind of sanction or authority, it should be called out only by the government if practicable, and so on. Not also the recent op-ed of former justice Stevens explicitly calling out Heller for questionable logic.


No government tolerates insurrection, even if they themselves were insurrectionists, and see the value of a good insurrection. Which is, of course, theirs, and not whoever is rebelling against them. This is true of pretty much everyone in power ever. The approval of those in power tells you nothing about the validity of a revolution.

Yeah, Stevens also believes we ought to repeal the second amendment. He's not representative of the court as a whole, but rather, the most extreme (former) element of it. Now, in fairness, you can make an argument that we ought to repeal it, but it's pretty clearly not the case at present, and is wildly unlikely to happen. It's a wish for a few extremists, not the current state of law.

As for the value of the militia...opinions vary. Washington in the early war wasn't terribly fond of them, but later in the war, he was able to use them quite effectively. A more balanced opinion is that it is deeply unlikely that either the militia or the regulars could have won the war alone, and the US needed both at the time, and for some time after. Considering the modern role of the militia, it still retains at least some importance, even if the regular military is much stronger relative to the rest of the world than during colonial times.

The modern need, however, doesn't really negate the right, unless repealed or amended. If you feel freedom of speech is irrelevant in the modern day, cool...it's still law, and clearly a lot of people feel differently. I'd suggest that all the surviving rights have at least some value to modern life, even if the world has changed a fair bit since then. Hell, speech has probably changed more rapidly than guns. The AR-15 is a sixty year old weapon platform at this point, and the colt .45 is well past a hundred. The internet develops at a far more rapid pace. However, the principles of preserving the power of the people remain important, regardless of the precise means of exercise.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6327
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:57 pm UTC

Kentucky Governor on teacher walk out:

I guarantee you somewhere in Kentucky today a child was sexually assaulted that was left at home because there was nobody there to watch them.

http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/Gov-Be ... 43093.html

Obviously, the governor is a Republican.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby pogrmman » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:25 pm UTC

Speaking of teacher walkouts, at least one Colorado district is closing so teachers can walk out.

I’m surprised that the teacher walkouts aren’t in the news more — I mean, over the past couple days, there’s been literally nothing about it on my AP app. I didn’t even know there was a walkout in Kentucky!

Frankly, it’s absurd that state legislators around the country tend not to increase the education budget. Yes, the walkouts are kind of a pain in the ass for everybody, but that’s the point. Even though Oklahoma has had teacher shortages for years, it took a massive walkout to get even an inch from the legislature.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:07 am UTC

Because it turns out that while the news companies are blatantly anti-Republican and pro-Democrat (except Fox), they are actually anti-labor?

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby dg61 » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:34 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
dg61 wrote:I feel like you have good points but some clarifications and emendations are in order:

1) Disarmament was contrary also to English practice; the English Bill of Rights stipulated that all men had the right to be armed in self-defense and legal commentaries considered this a natural right.


Disarmament happened in the Revolutionary era, to Americans. The whole Concord tiff was literally because they were coming to take weapons away from revolutionary elements, and they didn't want to give them up.

Sure, I'll grant that England may have been generally okay with Englishmen having arms, but the colonists were quite put out that they were not accorded what they felt was their right. It seems quite plain that they didn't want this to happen again, and given the context of the situation, we're definitely talking about stuff up to including weapons of war, not mere hunting pieces(cannon were included among the arms fought over, though small arms were also a part of it)


This is actually a pretty important historical point-the idea of "the rights of Englishmen" was very important to Americans and most stuff I've seen on the Second Amendment says that it was precisely this right that the Americans wanted to defend and claim. Remember that the idea that the US and Americans were something other than Englishmen took until the Revolution itself to take hold and even afterwards it was not unusual for American law to refer to English cases.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6327
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:20 pm UTC

Homeopath “treated” 4-yr-old boy’s behavior problems with saliva from rabid dog

I mean, I know this stuff is expected to be diluted to the point that it is just water, but at the same time I can imagine scenarios where some sloppy handling leads to the death of children.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5825
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Angua » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:57 pm UTC

How the hell did they get the saliva from the rabid dog without that being a massive infection control risk?

I mean, letting it anywhere near a person no matter how dilute is mad, but you do wonder how they got it in the first place.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Dauric » Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:02 pm UTC

I'm guessing but from this line in the article:
The rabid-dog treatment, called lyssinum (aka lyssin or hydrophobinum), is one of more than 8,500 homeopathic products approved by Health Canada, according to the CBC.

I'm guessing that maybe it's commercially available???

Mind you, it's as likely as not to have ever been touched by rabies, but as if that's stopped the supplement industry before...
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5825
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Angua » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:09 pm UTC

Yeah, but someone still has to have presumably got it at some point in the industrial process...
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric, jewish_scientist and 9 guests