What did they do?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Very sweeping generalization, which makes it hard to dispute; however, it is worthy of reminding you that there are specific crimes that do make straight white males the most likely targets.   You must not be pay any attention to Bopope (wink)  if you don't recognize that straight white males are the predominant targets of pedophiles.   High profile cases are of course the scandal in the Catholic Church, and the recent sex scandal at Penn State.  There are countless examples, all of which show that straight white males were victimized.   Stats prove that 1 in 7 boys vs. 1 in 3 girls are victims of sexual molestation; note, also, that stats are very hard to stand on due to the reluctance of men to come forward admiting they were abused.  Anyhow, just wanted to point out there is a chronic history of crime in our society where straight white males are directly targeted, and are the most likely targets.   Don't underestimate, just because this offense is punishable by law, it is a chronic, insidious problem.   And yes, we have the Sex Offender Registry, which is a good thing.   
    Posted by yogafriend[/QUOTE]

    Yogafriend..it is a generalization because it's meant to encompass all violent crimes that occur.
    You raise great points that white males may be less inclined to report crimes such as sexual assault and even domestic violence and while that would account for a certain percentage, the overall profile of a victim of a violent crime puts white males at the bottom..those least likely to be victims.

    Obviously, the statistic isn't meant to say that white males are never victimized. It simply states that as a percentage of victims of violent crimes, white males are the least likely.
    Using your example of the Church pedophile priests...yes..they were targeting boys but not only white boys. Minority boys were victims as well. It seemed like there were a lot of victims, but that is only because it was a big story. The number of white male boys victimized by pedophile priests is tiny in comparison to the number of young girls sexually asssaulted on a daily basis...or the number of poor (mostly minority) children overall who are victims of child abuse on a daily basis.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : "The bigger question is why don't we get people a psych test before they get a gun license? " Where does it end? Should people get a psych test before they get a drivers license? How about one before purchasing knives?  And would a psych test really be a great indicator of one's competency? The guy from the CO shooting was brilliant from what I've read. I would imagine he'd have no problem passing the psych test.
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]

    I don't know. I have to take a test to get a driver's license. I have to show an ID to buy cold medicine for my son.
    It doesn't sound unreasonable to me for someone to at least complete a psychological profile survey before they purchase something that essentially only has one use - to shoot something. It's not like a gun is a car. A car has another primary purpose..but guns are used to shoot ( or I suppose collect).

    Plus..how do we square the numbers? The US has the highest number of gun deeaths/injuries of any industrialized nation..and also the most relaxed gun laws. States with permissive gun laws have higher numbers of gun related deaths and injuries than states with strict gun laws.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from plasko. Show plasko's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : So you do think psych tests should be administered to people before getting a drivers license too? After all I would think you wouldn't want a crazy person behind the wheel of a 2,000 lb object that can be used to run people off the road. BTW, there are plenty of sane people who like to collect guns. The crazies who do the mass shootings are the exception not the rule. There are thousands and thousands of sane law abiding citizens who enjoy collecting guns for various reasons. People collect all sorts of things, yet when it comes to gun collectors people get all up in arms (no pun intended). Again I'm talking about the people who collect guns and are perfectly sane and law abiding. Those people are the overwhelming majority by a HUGE margin.
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]


    Are you talking about people who collect de-activated guns or replica guns? Or are you talking about very active and usable guns? In that latter case I would say the collector probably is a little unhinged. Why would someone want to collect weapons of death, be it guns, swords or something else? If it is just for the ornamental value then deactivated or replicas are just as good, no? Or perhaps historical muskets or something?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from plasko. Show plasko's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : To get a gun permit in most states you need to take a safety course. Then you apply for the permit. At which time a criminal and mental health background check is done. So I would say that's a tad bit more than just passing a easy drivers test wouldn't you? Then when you purchase a gun LEGALLY you have to present said permit.  Should we require people to pass a psych test before they buy alcohol? Alcohol causes more death than guns so should we have psych tests or even ban alcohol? Guns are used by law abiding citizens for collecting, target shooting, and hunting. Like anything there are going to be those people who use guns in a reprehensible way like crazies and criminals do. Just like cars. Majority of people use cars correctly...for getting them from point A to point B in a responsible way. But like anything there are those people who get behind the wheel after drinking too much and then cause accidents, in many cases killing themselves or someone else.
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]

    I would not ban alcohol, that has been tried and failed. Instead I would ban bars on the side of the highways, bars where the only way you can possibly get there is by driving. And I would hire at least 10x more cops to crackdown on drunk-drivers (with enforced breathalisers rather than silly walking-lines and touching noses crap), and re-train judges so they will actually convict these people rather than throw the cases out. The problem with the USA being a "car-society" is that all aspects of people's lives focus around them, including drinking. That leads to the disgusting situation we have right now where people actually don't mind drinking before driving. More money in an advertising anti-drink-driving blitz would not go amiss either. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Yogafriend..it is a generalization because it's meant to encompass all violent crimes that occur. You raise great points that white males may be less inclined to report crimes such as sexual assault and even domestic violence and while that would account for a certain percentage, the overall profile of a victim of a violent crime puts white males at the bottom..those least likely to be victims. Obviously, the statistic isn't meant to say that white males are never victimized. It simply states that as a percentage of victims of violent crimes, white males are the least likely. Using your example of the Church pedophile priests...yes..they were targeting boys but not only white boys. Minority boys were victims as well. It seemed like there were a lot of victims, but that is only because it was a big story. The number of white male boys victimized by pedophile priests is tiny in comparison to the number of young girls sexually asssaulted on a daily basis...or the number of poor (mostly minority) children overall who are victims of child abuse on a daily basis.
    Posted by miscricket[/QUOTE]
    Okay, fair enough, Cricket, but I just want to clarify a couple of points.   I wasn't aware you were talking about violent crimes only, but either way, it's still fair to point out an insidious "silent emotional killer" that is in fact, statistically shown, to infiltrate by a wide margin, the straight, white male population, as I said earlier, 1 in 7 boys, vs 1 in 3 girls.   All crimes that are sexual in nature have skewed statistics as you agreed, there is a keen awareness that there is a large percentage that is not ever reported.  
    I was speaking of a very specific crime, not in generalities as you have, pedophilia -- not general sexual assault or generic child abuse (not a sex crime) as you have.   It is a known, statistically taken fact that boys out number girls by a wide margin in regard to their victimization by pedophiles.
    Again, I only mention this because it is, in fact, an insidious, daily, on-going and chronic problem in our society that does target that specific population, and, in its aftermath, does account for and is the root of some of the on-going psychological problems with males in our society.  I don't disagree with your general contention that straight, while males are less frequently targeted (in terms of percentages) than other sectors of the population, but since it was blended with statements about their societal dominance, I felt it was fair to point out a crime where they are the dominant victims.  

    One last thing re: the Olympics and the opening ceremony.  Soon, we will see the closing, but I thought I'd point this out to you, as it might give you another perspective, which I feel you will appreciate.  I'm not inferring that your news source was not truthful, but your account of the reason why NBC edited the coverage for American audiences vastly differs from what I read; also, there was airtime used for another political purpose that you may have missed.  

    As for NBC (and I'm not here to defend them), I read that the Olympics and the IOC must maintain a unified focus for all nations.  Therefore, they do not want to spotlight the plight, devastation or political upset of any one country, because if they did it for one, they would not be able to prohibit doing it for another.  That would shift the focus of the Olympics and put a spotlight on dividing the countries, rather than uniting them, which is one of the key missions of the Olympic games and competition.  In editing out part of the opening ceremony that was centered around an attack on London, while respectful in nature, it was nonetheless outside of the policy of the IOC to air, and that's why it was cut.   Can't say coverage across the world cut it,  but that was the reason the US coverage took that course of action, according to what I read.

    Far more long-standing has been the controversy and heavily debated disagreement regarding the "moment of silence" that was requested for the 40th anniversary of the tragic murders of Israeli athletes in Munich.  The member of the IOC that was under the most scrutiny for lack of support, and at the center of the debate, is an Israeli, which, therefore, angered the Israeli people.   So, you see, Americans are not the only ones who determine what is broadcasted, or decide what becomes part of the Olympic ceremony.  While NBC may deserve criticism in other ways, framing them for the way they may have edited the ceremony may not be fair.

    Bob Costas supported the issue re: the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Munich tragedy, making statements that were not sanctioned by NBC ahead of time; rather than scorn, he may deserve some praise, at least in this instance:

    Hope this helps re-set your POV and further reinforces that news sources do vary greatly, and there will always be times when we don't see all the angles to a news story.   Thanks.  
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from plasko. Show plasko's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : So your answer to everything is more regulation? I have to admit I've never seen a bar on the side of the pike, 95, 93, 24. There is one along rt 2, I suppose that spot causes more drunk driving accidents than bars in Boston. But I doubt it. Your idea of bars ONLY being in areas where you can walk or on a bus route is ridiculous and scary that people like you think this way. So much for the American spirit of being able to own a business. There would be very few restaurants/bars if you had your way. Yikes. You can't legislate stupidity. People always have and always will drink and drive. I was lucky in that I learned my lesson. The last time I drank and drove was 1997. Now I MAY have one beer when I drive. And that's when I know I won't be driving for at LEAST an hour.  People know they shouldn't drink and drive. More advertisment about it will do nothing. I mean really. We are taught about it when we get our license. Our parents drill it into our heads that we shouldn't do it. Yet we all have done it.
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]

    Do you mean driving at least an hour after you finish your beer, or after ordering your beer? The advertising I was talking about is more hard-hitting stuff, showing actual scenes of accidents, showing pleading relatives of actual dead people begging the public not to do it. The sort of stuff that tugs at heart-strings and pushes guilt buttons. You say the last time you drank+drove was ages ago, but yet you still did it. Even one time. That is the problem.
    My idea of restricting bars to urban areas actually enhances business prowess, because they will be slap-bang where consumers are. Even hotel bars out in the sticks are fine as everyone goes to bed right there. There will always be a couple of people driving by who will swing-by to drink+drive but as you point out you can never stamp out the hardcore criminals. 
    But yes I am for beefing up regulation in all sorts of arenas. As for your target-practice shooting thing, I can see that people might be interested in that. So why not join a gun-club who will give you a gun when you arrive for your session and then take it back before you exit the door? There would be no actual need to bring your own gun, and you still get off on firing a weapon. 



     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from plasko. Show plasko's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : You say the last time you drank+drove was ages ago, but yet you still did it. Even one time. That is the problem. I know it is...that was my point. That even though we all know we shouldn't we still do. No amount of gruesome accidents is going to stop it on the whole. That is a reality. And I will only have one beer if I know I have at least an hour after finishing it. 99% of the time I have much more than an hour. MA doesn't have gun ranges where they rent guns. There is one that I know of in Manchester, NH that does but that's not convenient for everyone.  I still find it funny that someone who likes to target shoot is "getting off" shooting guns. Yet any other hobby you wouldn't say that. Have you ever shot a target using a gun? Ever been competitive with ANYTHING? You are judgemental because of something you are afraid of. That's silly. And why do you feel there is no need for me to own a gun? I don't own one, but why do you look at it that way? Why if I'm a law abiding citizen is it so scary if I owned a gun? You realiz guns don't shoot themselves right? If I owned a gun it would remain locked up, just as my dad did with his guns, until ready to use at gun range. Guns aren't scary...it's the people that are scary.  Scary people have killed with many objects other than guns such as knives, bats, fire, and on and on.
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]

    In many ways I do agree with you. And no I am not that competitive, I do my best and don't care what others do; it has nothing to do with me, so I guess the only person I really compete with is myself. 
    Yes guns do not shoot themselves, but they can sure kill a hell of a lot of people in a short timeframe, especially semi-automatic ones. I am sure you will agree that there is no need for such weapons for hunting (the beast has to have a chance to escape otherwise why bother hunting, it is just a slaughter), or target practice. 
    On the note of "right to bear arms" who gets to decide what is an "arm"? 
    What if I wanted to go legitimately hunting with some poison cyanide gas cannisters, would that be allowed? Or maybe a bazooka? Or a tomahawk missile? 
    I suppose, in analogy, that is why airplane crashes make the news while car crashes do not: airplane ones kill several people at once, yet individual one-by-one car accidents kill by far more people. Same then goes for crazy guys (and they are 99% of the time men), who go on shooting rampages and have large body counts versus stabbing deaths of individuals. 
    Why not limit guns abilities to fire rapidly? People can still own guns then but not mega-death machines. The manufacturers hold a lot of responsibility for this too. Remember a couple of years ago they came out with a gun that had the feature of not retaining any fingerprints? What possible legal reason would they ever develop such a thing? They are pushing the limits and they know they are getting away with a LOT by bribing the right people. Kinda like the old tobacco or oil industry chiefs used to do. 


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : You say the last time you drank+drove was ages ago, but yet you still did it. Even one time. That is the problem. I know it is...that was my point. That even though we all know we shouldn't we still do. No amount of gruesome accidents is going to stop it on the whole. That is a reality. And I will only have one beer if I know I have at least an hour after finishing it. 99% of the time I have much more than an hour. MA doesn't have gun ranges where they rent guns. There is one that I know of in Manchester, NH that does but that's not convenient for everyone.  I still find it funny that someone who likes to target shoot is "getting off" shooting guns. Yet any other hobby you wouldn't say that. Have you ever shot a target using a gun? Ever been competitive with ANYTHING? You are judgemental because of something you are afraid of. That's silly. And why do you feel there is no need for me to own a gun? I don't own one, but why do you look at it that way? Why if I'm a law abiding citizen is it so scary if I owned a gun? You realiz guns don't shoot themselves right? If I owned a gun it would remain locked up, just as my dad did with his guns, until ready to use at gun range. Guns aren't scary...it's the people that are scary.  Scary people have killed with many objects other than guns such as knives, bats, fire, and on and on.
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]
    It seems like you are making an argument for more regulation.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Okay, fair enough, Cricket, but I just want to clarify a couple of points.   I wasn't aware you were talking about violent crimes only, but either way, it's still fair to point out an insidious "silent emotional killer" that is in fact, statistically shown, to infiltrate by a wide margin, the straight, white male population, as I said earlier, 1 in 7 boys, vs 1 in 3 girls.   All crimes that are sexual in nature have skewed statistics as you agreed, there is a keen awareness that there is a large percentage that is not ever reported.   I was speaking of a very specific crime, not in generalities as you have, pedophilia -- not general sexual assault or generic child abuse (not a sex crime) as you have.   It is a known, statistically taken fact that boys out number girls by a wide margin in regard to their victimization by pedophiles. Again, I only mention this because it is, in fact, an insidious, daily, on-going and chronic problem in our society that does target that specific population, and, in its aftermath, does account for and is the root of some of the on-going psychological problems with males in our society.  I don't disagree with your general contention that straight, while males are less frequently targeted (in terms of percentages) than other sectors of the population, but since it was blended with statements about their societal dominance, I felt it was fair to point out a crime where they are the dominant victims.   One last thing re: the Olympics and the opening ceremony.  Soon, we will see the closing, but I thought I'd point this out to you, as it might give you another perspective, which I feel you will appreciate.  I'm not inferring that your news source was not truthful, but your account of the reason why NBC edited the coverage for American audiences vastly differs from what I read; also, there was airtime used for another political purpose that you may have missed.   As for NBC (and I'm not here to defend them), I read that the Olympics and the IOC must maintain a unified focus for all nations.  Therefore, they do not want to spotlight the plight, devastation or political upset of any one country, because if they did it for one, they would not be able to prohibit doing it for another.  That would shift the focus of the Olympics and put a spotlight on dividing the countries, rather than uniting them, which is one of the key missions of the Olympic games and competition.  In editing out part of the opening ceremony that was centered around an attack on London, while respectful in nature, it was nonetheless outside of the policy of the IOC to air, and that's why it was cut.   Can't say coverage across the world cut it,  but that was the reason the US coverage took that course of action, according to what I read. Far more long-standing has been the controversy and heavily debated disagreement regarding the "moment of silence" that was requested for the 40th anniversary of the tragic murders of Israeli athletes in Munich.  The member of the IOC that was under the most scrutiny for lack of support, and at the center of the debate, is an Israeli, which, therefore, angered the Israeli people.   So, you see, Americans are not the only ones who determine what is broadcasted, or decide what becomes part of the Olympic ceremony.  While NBC may deserve criticism in other ways, framing them for the way they may have edited the ceremony may not be fair. Bob Costas supported the issue re: the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Munich tragedy, making statements that were not sanctioned by NBC ahead of time; rather than scorn, he may deserve some praise, at least in this instance: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/28/bob-costas-isreali-athlete-controversy Hope this helps re-set your POV and further reinforces that news sources do vary greatly, and there will always be times when we don't see all the angles to a news story.   Thanks.  
    Posted by yogafriend[/QUOTE]

    Hi Yogafriend, thank you for your comment. I can't disagree with anything you say.

    As far as the NBC thing on the Olympics, I can accept that explanation a lot easier than the explanation that NBC initially gave..so thanks for the info. I still stand by my statement that Lauer and Viera were terrible;-)
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : It seems like you are making an argument for more regulation.
    Posted by FaolanofEssex[/QUOTE]
    I got the same impression. BTW..love the avatar and the name!!!
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from plasko. Show plasko's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : I believe assault weapons (fully auto) have no business being in the hands of non-military citizens. That ban should never have been allowed to expire. Shameful. "On the note of "right to bear arms" who gets to decide what is an "arm"?  What if I wanted to go legitimately hunting with some poison cyanide gas cannisters, would that be allowed? Or maybe a bazooka? Or a tomahawk missile?" Govt has. To my knowledge cyanide gas cannisters are illegal as are bazookas and tomahawk missles. Unless I missed something recently...: )
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]

    Uh-oh, time to call in the tea party. Sounds like government has taken away my right to go hunting with a bazooka. Damned regulations. 

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from plasko. Show plasko's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Seems you're against having some regulations in regards to hunting. Don't you think it would be absured to hunt with a bazooka? That's a bit unhinged in my book. 
    Posted by WhichOnesPink2[/QUOTE]

    Mine too, and I am sorry you can't pick up on sarcasm ;)
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]Yesterday, a gunman opened fire on a Sikh temple, killing 6 people, injuring 3 and terrorizing a community of people who were guilty of...well..nothing. On the face of it, it seems like this is just another mass shooting. But, what if it goes deeper? In the aftermath of 9/11, many in the Sikh community were targeted by ignorant bigots who thought they were Muslims..as if an entire religous community were responible for the reprehensible actions of a few. We are quickly coming to a time that we are going to have to engage in some serious dialogue about what it means to be American. It was quite an education watching the news reporters yesterday. It made me think that we really need to raise the education level of national news anchors. None of them had ever heard of the Sikh religion, even though it is the 5th largest in the world. One thing for sure, the US is not worldly. We, as a country are very self centered. Heck..our own news media didn't want to show us the tribute to the victims of London terrorism. NBC felt it wouldn't appeal to a US audience. It is as though they have determined that we lack the compassion to feel empathy for anyone other than ourselves. Could that be true? Regardless...as a country we can't keep going down this path. As a nation, we look upon certain cultures as inferior to us..as threats to our well-being. I suppose that in this day and age of the War on Terror that is to be expected. However, while we are fighting the War on Terror, we should look in the collective mirror and understand that there are more instances of domestic terrorism in this country than international terrorism. Our intolerance towards are own citizens has reached a breaking point. Our view of religious freedom needs to be called into question when people of other faiths feel threatened. So, I ask again, what did the members of this Sikh community do? A religion based on generosity, kindness, equality and community service. Yesterday, in the aftermath, while they were grieiving and their hearts were breaking..they provided food and drinks for law enforcement and other responders..because that is what they do. We should all feel humbled by their generosity. At a time when we should have been serving them, they served us.
    Posted by miscricket[/QUOTE]

    Very thoughtful post, miscricket.
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: What did they do?

    In Response to Re: What did they do?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What did they do? : Ta dah! Lets list the murders that were "lovey dovey crimes", shall we?
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    You don't need hate to commit a murder.  Just an intent to kill.  And what of the crimes without death as a result?  Don't you want to lock those people up for the crime and a little extra for the hate?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share