Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    liberals reply that there isn’t much evidence which suggests more restrictions on guns will have a massive difference of crime,
    The UK had a school shooting in 1996, at Dunblane. I'm old enough to remember it. Soon afterwards the UK government banned handguns. Gun owners weren't happy, but 160,000 guns were handed to the police, and their owners were compensated. There hasn't been a single child shot in a British school since. How much more evidence do you need?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    oh please, we see the same narrative each and every time. possibly white privilege?
    Garbage. The MSM did its utmost to spread animosity towards whites with regards to George Zimmerman (not even white), Eric Garner (the officer involved was not white), Michael Brown (the whole "hands up, don't shoot" lie it helped spread) and frequently refrains from commenting on the ethnicity of ethnic minority criminals, whilst using passive language where it can. CNN has been found staging incidents to make it seem like "white nationalist extremism" has been on the rise. In countries like France, and I believe Sweden, crime statistics aren't even kept based on ethnicity for fear of being "racist". So take this "white privilege" rhetoric, and shove it. There are numerous reports on media bias on these cases and any real study worth its salt has not found that "ethnic minorities" are being "victimised" by the cops, so much as it is the case that they do commit more crimes, with the media usually covering it up and staying quiet about it or lying about the perpetrator's ethnicity.

    The fact of the matter is that many of these shooters have a common thread involved in that they are mentally disturbed and, often, proscribed psychotrophics and particularly SSRIs, but also have histories of abusive/negligent parents (as was the case with Elliot Rogers, whose parental background is shocking to read in terms of the neglect.) Their actions are the result of this. Terrorism, by contrast, is a motivated act with a political purpose to it, usually to subvert the existing government authorities. Where such activities fit this bill, they are indeed classified in this way. So would it be classed as terrorism?

    All people like you want to do is try dissolve this down to the supposed "white privilege" (btw majority "privilege" is normal in most countries where diversity is not fetishised, like most non-white ones) aspect and trot it out whenever a narrative is required to spread anti-gun rhetoric in addition to this. I wasn't going to comment on this, but you operate in reverse reality, sorry to say.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    It seems each time a white person shoots up a bunch of people, we will hear the inevitable chorus of "If he was Muslim he would have been called a terrorist." We will also get people trying to call the shooter a terrorist, despite him not actually fitting the definition, seemingly in a half-witted attempt to make a statement.

    A person who commits an act of terror, or at least appears to have done so, will likely be called a terrorist by the media. A person with a history of mental illness who kills a bunch of people will likely be called mentally ill by the media. It's not rocket science. If it appears white mass killers are described as mentally ill more often, then perhaps it really is the case that they are. We don't know. Instead people will base their conclusions entirely on their subjective interpretations of what they happen to see on the news. This isn't reliable.

    Lastly, we have this notion come up that anyone who kills a bunch of people must be mentally ill anyway. To that I say perfectly healthy people are just as capable of doing evil things. Just look at human history.

    There is no proof at all that there is a double standard, and I am sick of hearing the unfounded notion that there is every single time.
    You're right of course. I blame the media for lazy thinking and reporting which has caused certain phrases to become synonymous with certain acts which do not fit the established definitions.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    The UK had a school shooting in 1996, at Dunblane. I'm old enough to remember it. Soon afterwards the UK government banned handguns. Gun owners weren't happy, but 160,000 guns were handed to the police, and their owners were compensated. There hasn't been a single child shot in a British school since. How much more evidence do you need?
    Admittedly I wasn’t alive when the Dunblane shooting happened, though it was an exceptionally rare case to begin with. My point is that it doesn’t make too much difference, probably next to nothing, on crime rates because there are other ways of obtaining the same effect. Yes guns are convenient, but if people actually wanted to use guns in that way, they’ll probably obtain them illegally since they are that dedicated.
    The compliance of the British public is admirable, seeing they didn’t have much else of a choice, but it in the long run has not decreased the amount of violent crimes.
    Unless you can provide evidence that suggests crime rates have gone down since handgun legislation, feel free to share it with me. In the time Handguns were legalised, only one shooting happened in a school and whilst I’d agree there was probably stuff that could have been done to prevent another, prohibiting personal handguns is probably the most extreme decision to be taken
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    With Charlottesville, one person died because of a vehicle attack is even dubious to whether it was intentional...yes the guy was interested in white supremacy... his motive might not have been to kill intentionally)... since violence was conducted equally from the counter protesters.
    Really!!!? He idolised Hitler and drove his car at speed into a crowd of people who held opposite views to him, killing one and injuring 35. He's been charged with first degree murder. Deandre Harris was also hospitalised after being set upon by six men. No neo-nazi was killed or seriously injured.
    The whole thread started with statement that double standards don't exist. You've just blown that out the water.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Within the MSM, they do. Just not in the direction being posited.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Really!!!? He idolised Hitler and drove his car at speed into a crowd of people who held opposite views to him, killing one and injuring 35. He's been charged with first degree murder. Deandre Harris was also hospitalised after being set upon by six men. No neo-nazi was killed or seriously injured.
    The whole thread started with statement that double standards don't exist. You've just blown that out the water.
    I don’t deny that he idolised Hitler, it just appears to be there is more to the story than what originally was reported, in regards to the provocative nature of Antifa member Dwayne Dixon. My comments in response to The PoliticalGuy calling out the KKK specifically as a terrorist group and regards to the Charlottesville attack killing black activists ( the plural is not entirely accurate)
    It’s the nature of what has been said that has prompted me to be sidetracked. I by no means defend the actions of neo Nazis or white supremacists, but illustrate that there is a different sort of double standard within media, one that seems to demonise only one side, where is more that one side that is wrong. The double standard for shooting cases however doesn’t exist.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    I don’t deny that he idolised Hitler, it just appears to be there is more to the story than what originally was reported, in regards to the provocative nature of Antifa member Dwayne Dixon. My comments in response to The PoliticalGuy calling out the KKK specifically as a terrorist group and regards to the Charlottesville attack killing black activists ( the plural is not entirely accurate)
    It’s the nature of what has been said that has prompted me to be sidetracked. I by no means defend the actions of neo Nazis or white supremacists, but illustrate that there is a different sort of double standard within media, one that seems to demonise only one side, where is more that one side that is wrong. The double standard for shooting cases however doesn’t exist.
    The KKK is also tiny in comparison to groups like anti-fa (which for some reason these people are sympathetic to), and had virtually nothing to do with the entire incident. The MSM is doing its utmost to make it seem like there's some manner of big KKK or Nazi resurgence in the US, when there is no such thing and instead it's mostly left-wing hooligans facing increasing opposition. The Charlottesville case is interesting because the police may in fact have contributed to the death involved due to the way in which they organised the crowds, with the city council's knowledge.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The real disrespect here is that Trump and co. only seem to care about mental illness when things like this happen. According to him, we only need to worry about the mentally ill when someone who potentially falls into that category commits murder. That's when it becomes important and that's when we're allowed to speak about it. But the large percentage of the US population who battle mental disorders every single day of their lives without ever harming another person because of it? Nah they can just deal with it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    But that is grossly exaggerating the discussions that take place after an attack like this... the centrists and leftists bring up gun control in these situations to which liberals reply that there isn’t much evidence which suggests more restrictions on guns will have a massive difference of crime, you can’t even be sure whether it will have a positive impact. They wonder if there was things law enforcement could have done to stop it, and whether they could have stopped their extremist views from motivating their attack. ( and if it wasn’t politically motivated, how else they could have stopped it, like taking heed to prior reports submitted)
    When an Islamist attack occurs... right wingers don’t call for a Muslim ban, they call into question how law enforcement and counter terrorism units spend their time and how further action could prevent it. They call into question how background checks are carried out of immigrants who come from countries where they are statistically more likely to cause harm, and wonder how things domestically allow for radicalisation. ( once again, if they weren’t motivated by ideology, what steps could have done to stop it) Do you see the similarities there.
    There are always discussions on what to do following an attack and ensure both freedom and safety, I guarantee you that they don’t intend to discriminate against certain people groups or religion ( a very small minority of people do that) and they certainly don’t value guns above human life.
    So yes I can say there is no double standard with a straight face in terms of media coverage, and is simply people coming up with a narrative that convinces others there is a double standard
    Right-wingers don't call for a Muslim ban? Is Trump a right-winger or not? Did you feel like you were truly being honest when you made this statement?

    And while banning guns won't stop people from being violent, there is ample evidence that guns are a far more efficient murder tool that the others that are commonly used, capable of inflicting more damage and taking more lives. So why is it that when incidents such as these happen, right-wingers claim that gun control will not improve the problem? And why is it that these same people claim that extra surveillance on Muslim communities and profiling them will limit Islamist extremism? Is that not a double standard?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    It seems each time a white person shoots up a bunch of people, we will hear the inevitable chorus of "If he was Muslim he would have been called a terrorist." We will also get people trying to call the shooter a terrorist, despite him not actually fitting the definition, seemingly in a half-witted attempt to make a statement.

    A person who commits an act of terror, or at least appears to have done so, will likely be called a terrorist by the media. A person with a history of mental illness who kills a bunch of people will likely be called mentally ill by the media. It's not rocket science. If it appears white mass killers are described as mentally ill more often, then perhaps it really is the case that they are. We don't know. Instead people will base their conclusions entirely on their subjective interpretations of what they happen to see on the news. This isn't reliable.

    Lastly, we have this notion come up that anyone who kills a bunch of people must be mentally ill anyway. To that I say perfectly healthy people are just as capable of doing evil things. Just look at human history.

    There is no proof at all that there is a double standard, and I am sick of hearing the unfounded notion that there is every single time.
    Well a "Muslim" terrorist can't be sane when he/she carries out an attack can they?

    How come their medical history isn't looked at? The majority of the "Muslim" terrorists come from the UK, so I am sure they can find their medical history.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Eunomia)
    Right-wingers don't call for a Muslim ban? Is Trump a right-winger or not? Did you feel like you were truly being honest when you made this statement?

    And while banning guns won't stop people from being violent, there is ample evidence that guns are a far more efficient murder tool that the others that are commonly used, capable of inflicting more damage and taking more lives. So why is it that when incidents such as these happen, right-wingers claim that gun control will not improve the problem? And why is it that these same people claim that extra surveillance on Muslim communities and profiling them will limit Islamist extremism? Is that not a double standard?
    Trump is a right winger yes, he had been a democrat but he definitely is a republican for the moment. He did say that in a speech yes, but given how he begun his first year as president, he definitely did not intend for it to be a Muslim ban. The fact that it was Obama left over legislation further supports that.
    Not all right wingers call for a Muslim ban, some may do but that is unreasonable and solves nothing. Being more mindful of applications from countries that sponsor terror is reasonable, as should be the job of immigration to ensure no one with mal-intent enters the country. I am being honest in that regard
    Guns are also an effective tool for self defence. In other countries, and in years gone past here, having a handgun meant that statistically something like a robbery at an household would be less likely to succeed. Gun control is not an effective measure, if people have Mal intent, they won’t bother jumping through legal loopholes to obtain guns... they’ll just illegally obtain them, meaning being ultra restrictive with guns at the end of the day isn’t as effective as one might believe. I think it would be a double standard to monitor specific people and profiling them. I think that is discriminatory, and limits personal freedoms. It is a necessity with boarder controls because these people aren’t necessarily British citizens, and should go through such checks. What I would ask is why law enforcement aren’t effective enough at acting upon information given to them from the public ( we’ve seen that in the last few massacres in both the US and here) and why didn’t they pay attention to the severity of it.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bones-mccoy)
    The real disrespect here is that Trump and co. only seem to care about mental illness when things like this happen. According to him, we only need to worry about the mentally ill when someone who potentially falls into that category commits murder. That's when it becomes important and that's when we're allowed to speak about it. But the large percentage of the US population who battle mental disorders every single day of their lives without ever harming another person because of it? Nah they can just deal with it.
    I 100 percent agree with you. it's just a sad reality.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cod3tte)
    Well a "Muslim" terrorist can't be sane when he/she carries out an attack can they?

    How come their medical history isn't looked at? The majority of the "Muslim" terrorists come from the UK, so I am sure they can find their medical history.
    Are you implying that anyone who carries out an attack or killing must therefore be insane? Because that simply isn't the case. Perfectly sane, healthy people can and do carry out these acts of evil on a regular basis. Were the Nazis all mentally ill? The fascist party in Italy? ISIS? The Taliban? No, they weren't. Recent history is filled with killers and murderers who were all mentally healthy. Mental insanity is not a requirement to do evil.

    Ask yourself why every murderer and violent person isn't in a mental hospital.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bammy jastard 27)
    The whole point is that people will still kill people.

    Also there are probably other effective methods. What stops that same person from getting a van or car to run people over e.g.
    Of course they will but you dont need to roll out the red carpet in making it so damn easy for them. Why dont you legalise people buying high explosives if thats the case?
    Again a car is not in any way, shape or form the same as a gun...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    There's a difference between covering something and playing it up.

    When Dylan Roof shot dead 8 people in a Church in a race war, the right wing media refused to describe it as terrorism.
    A lot of people don't believe a racist action is the same as a political action. Otherwise every racially motivated hate crime would also carry terror charges.

    Dylan Roof never received a terror charge, by the way. So, even if I assume you are right and that they never did call him a terrorist, technically the 'right wing media' wasn't wrong, as it was never terrorism in the eyes of the state.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bones-mccoy)
    The real disrespect here is that Trump and co. only seem to care about mental illness when things like this happen. According to him, we only need to worry about the mentally ill when someone who potentially falls into that category commits murder. That's when it becomes important and that's when we're allowed to speak about it. But the large percentage of the US population who battle mental disorders every single day of their lives without ever harming another person because of it? Nah they can just deal with it.
    So what about all those presidents before him, all the time whilst mental disorder diagnoses have been on the rise in tandem with the usage of psychotropic medications to treat it? I understand that it may seem like a large % of the population has mental disorders, what with the prominent airtime SJWs are given, but what constitutes a "mental disorder" in this context? What did Trump even say about it that has you in such a twist?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cod3tte)
    Well a "Muslim" terrorist can't be sane when he/she carries out an attack can they?

    How come their medical history isn't looked at? The majority of the "Muslim" terrorists come from the UK, so I am sure they can find their medical history.
    No need for quotation marks. They know better than you what their faith is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    Trump is a right winger yes, he had been a democrat but he definitely is a republican for the moment. He did say that in a speech yes, but given how he begun his first year as president, he definitely did not intend for it to be a Muslim ban. The fact that it was Obama left over legislation further supports that.
    Not all right wingers call for a Muslim ban, some may do but that is unreasonable and solves nothing. Being more mindful of applications from countries that sponsor terror is reasonable, as should be the job of immigration to ensure no one with mal-intent enters the country. I am being honest in that regard
    Indeed, not a peep was made about it when it was applied under the Obama administration. There are problems with it in terms of which countries it applies to. It doesn't really target the highest risk ones.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    A lot of people don't believe a racist action is the same as a political action. Otherwise every racially motivated hate crime would also carry terror charges.

    Dylan Roof never received a terror charge, by the way. So, even if I assume you are right and that they never did call him a terrorist, technically the 'right wing media' wasn't wrong, as it was never terrorism in the eyes of the state.
    Well that's the point. Why did the state not charge him with terrorism?

    Why is someone killing people in order to start a race war, not terrorism?

    What's the difference between what Dylan Roof did and what the Manchester killer did? Both killed people outside their 'group' for fundamentalist reasons. Why is one terrorism but not the other?

    Genuinely interested in what you think are the real differences between the two.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.