Hystery

I already said it. First, that the US complain about some countries not respecting the human rights, but conveniently choose not to say anything about the ones they're allied with. And second, that the US complain about some countries not respect the human rights, while they don't respect them themselves. Should I remind you the existence of Guantanamo and the horrors that happened and still happen there? Yeah, not really all human rights-friendly. It's fun how people quickly forget about those things. When you complain about something but you do it yourself or ignore the fact your friends are doing it is being hypocritical, no matter how much money you put on the table. Yeah, not gonna argue with you on that, putting someone who violates regularly human rights as a chairman of the council is ridiculous. Although I don't remember the US complaining a lot about this particular case lately, and clearly it's not the reason why they decided now to leave the council. It was more a situation of 'mimimi u bully my friend (Isreal) so i will throw a tantrum and leave the council'. Ah, see, you're saying it yourself. It has been HIJACKED. When a plane is hijacked to make it crash somewhere, do you blame the plane, or the hijackers? Personally I choose to blame the hijackers, in this case the country-members. But if you prefer to blame the plane, hey, you do you.

What I was pointing at is that people seem to complain about the UN being pushed by its members and their agendas, while the US does exactly the same. It's like complaining you get bullied, while bullying someone yourself. It's hypocritical. It's a classic case of 'look at my neighbor's shit but don't look at mine'. Not saying only the US does it, they all do it, but it's kinda double-standard-ish to point it out as if the US was completely innocent in the story. Nah nah. The UN isn't a joke. The UN is, and I quote, "an intergovernmental organization tasked to promote international cooperation and to create and maintain international order. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was established on 24 October 1945 after World War II with the aim of preventing another such conflict." As you can see, the UN has very noble goals. It promotes talks over conflicts. Negotiations over wars. I'm sure that you wouldn't want a WWIII, neither do I. The UN play a role in preventing such a thing to happen. The issue doesn't lie in the UN itself, and blaming the UN is just asking for trouble. It's what the members of the UN do that is allegedly troublesome. Don't blame the UN, blame the country-members that do or do not do things you'd like things done. It's an issue pretty similar to the EU. The EU in itself wasn't a bad idea, it was pretty good actually, on the paper, but it was the way it was executed and how it turned out over the years that made it the mess it is nowadays.

The US could do something about that at the council, to ask for this to be looked into. But Saudi Arabia is a good buddy, and they don't want to upset a good buddy. So the US are equally responsible and guilty of making this council a 'joke'. It's hypocritical to complain about something and say it's a 'joke' when it doesn't go the way you want it to go while pushing your own agendas in the back like everyone else in it.

You can call someone a fag here too. It would make you a huge, antipathetic dick, and you'd be treated as such, rightfully so, but you still can do it. Just like I could call 'muricans gun-nuts, those americans would think I'm a dick and treat me as such, but I can still do it if I want to. Freedom of speech would be impeded if you were forbidden by law to not say it, which isn't the case here, gladly. Yeah, if you go out of your way to mock whole communities (which is a lot different than criticizing), it's gonna backfire at you, but it's not related to freedom of speech, it's more that you're just behaving like an idiot. Besides, if we go with racial slurs, I'm preeetty sure that's a much bigger deal in the US with for example the whole 'n*gga' situation than here, considering it's not even a word we use anywhere.

Dunno where you get your info, but you couldn't get it more wrong on this part. I can say my government is shit, or that EU is shit, or I can talk about anything anywhere and no one will prevent me to do so, because freedom of speech IS guaranteed. Stop thinking the EU is some kind of over-controlled zone where people are trapped or caged in their condition (and alternatively, stop thinking the US is so much better in so many regards, because clearly it isn't, both continents are shit and we're all toyed with by the ones in power, no matter the location). EVERYONE has a political agenda. Absolutely -everyone-. Especially in medias. News from the internet aren't any more or less real than the actual news on the TV. Both are told and showed in a way that will orientate the viewer to think one thing or another about an event. There's no source of news anywhere that is absolutely objective. The best way to get informed is to actually check news from MANY news websites or channels, gather the info from all sides and digest everything to make your own opinion, rather than to have it cooked and served to you by someone behind a screen.

Dunno what's more sickening to be fair. That dude thinking kicking someone in the face is a good way to represent law enforcement, or the hundreds of comments under the video encouraging this kind of behavior.

Another idiot thinking that because he wears a uniform he's above the law.

That's an issue with investigation and trial, not with the law. You're mixing everything. Until recently, it was forbidden for gay couples to marry legally. I'm gay. Meaning that until recently, you'd want me to do (or in this case, NOT do) things (marry) in the manner that you want, and I'd not agree with it, but still would be forced to live by it. Does that mean that I'd have been a slave for so long and never realized it until now? 🤔 Or maybe does that mean you make no sense with this and you're clearly overreacting? 🤔 EDIT: sorry for the double post, website has been acting up today.

I'm looking at both the individual, who's evidently someone bad (drop the 'evil', it's so theatrical, and not fitting), and at the people who give them the opportunity to get his hands on a tool that was designed to kill someone. The point is clear anyway: you have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own a gun. You're favorable for psychos to have the right to own a gun, regardless of if they're about to commit a murder with it. There's nothing else to argue after that. You've more chances to kill someone with a gun, even if you don't know how to shoot it, than by stabbing someone. Be real now, it's getting ridiculous. To kill someone with a knife, you need to first, get up close, second, having the victim not being able to defend itself, third, either exactly knowing where to stab to kill someone quick, or to stab multiple times (which takes a lot longer than shooting someone down), fourth, to have the stamina (because yeah, stabbing someone takes strength, if you think you can just sink a knife into someone like into butter, you're sorely mistaken). To kill someone with a gun, you don't need to get up close, the victim cannot defend itself, and it takes just a second to take someone down, either through injury or fatally, and you need no stamina, just to have a fingertip to press the trigger. Saying that, because knives can kill, guns are worth having, is fallacy and a clear evidence that you've no argument to prove your point. I'd gladly discuss this in public, with you or anyone, regardless of the location, because it's not about confrontation, but defending your opinions. Don't assume what I would or would not discuss in public. You're blaming people for painting a color you're not, you're just doing the same right now. Irrelevant to the topic. You don't need a permit to drink and then grab your gun for fun and shoot someone by accident either. Does it make sense regarding the discussion? No. Just like what you just said.

It's nice and all to say "Let's put metal detectors, guards at the entrance, shut all doors but the entrance and make them openable only in case of fire hazard or other stuff, call for a 24/7 satellite surveillance, a bunker and an arsenal of nuke (barely exaggerating there) to prevent mass shootings in schools". It's nice, yeah. It feels safe. Inside. Meanwhile, the guy who wants to shoot the kids just has to wait for the end of class where all the kids go back home to shoot them when they all go out. From the only open door. Making all those safety measures irrelevant. Therefore, the issue doesn't lie in the schools safety measures, but elsewhere. Where? Hm, I do wonder... 🤔 What else can take a life in mere milliseconds? A bomb? You need to know where to find the materials, how to build it and how to trigger it. A knife? You gotta know where to exactly stab your victim if you want to kill them that fast and that quickly, on top of knowing how to fight with one to overcome anyone who'd have any knowledge about self-defense. A car? It's not a 100% kill, and you need to know how to drive one. I don't see what else really that could kill someone in mere milliseconds. A gun does though, because it requires little training to shoot someone at point blank range, getting access to it is relatively easy since there's no permit required in most cases, nor is there any kind of psychological test to see if you're some kind of psycho or an irresponsible human being who'd use a gun like a toy. And you can't dodge a bullet. So, that excuse of "many things can be used to kill someone quick" is pretty irrelevant.

But NO ONE is stopping you from getting what you want. God damn it's crazy you get so stuck up on that. NO ONE. IS. STOPPING YOU. FROM GETTING. WHAT YOU WANT. Any citizen could get a gun if they wanted. Anyone. Only the ones that would be found to have mental issues of some sort would be prevented from getting one, until they're cured. How is that preventing you from owning a gun in any way for god's sake. It doesn't, you still can own all the AR15 of the world. You're staying so stuck up on that even though it's not the point is beyond me. And what is even beyond me is that you're so attached to "muh freedomz" that you're favorable to people with murder urges to have access to a gun legally. At this point you've blood on your hands just as much as the politicians who do jackshit about all this. On another note, no one talked about restricting someone's free speech, you're making movies in your head now. Calm down, drink a tea, and realize that no one here talked about removing your freedoms. Your freedoms are safe. Promise. Also, if your definition of bullying is only with words, you clearly have fallen on the kindest bullies ever, because bullying can involve a fair lot of physical humiliations as well.

Just. Like. Every. Other. Single. Regulation. Ever. Do you say "Oh no, this criminal could be charged for a crime with laws that might have had political beliefs pressure behind them, how can we ensure that the people who made the law weren't putting their political beliefs before anything when they made the law and that the judges won't push their own agenda when sentencing, and how will this not be corrupt?" I doubt so. You'd say more "This criminal could be charged, that's good, laws are good." Same here. You really need to stop being so paranoid as soon as someone talk about making a law or regulation. As to who would assess what individual can or cannot get their hands on a gun depending on their mental state, just make them pass a psychological test, just like people do when they want to be a police officer or enrole in the army. It's not a big deal really, no one calls the psychatrists that do the psychological tests in the police or army "people who would put their political beliefs before anything when they evaluate people" and "how will this not be corrupt". They just accept it. Same here, not a single difference. Do the same. You're contradicting yourself there. I'm saying that we should make reactions and punishments to bullying tougher so people can actually DO something against bullies, you tell me "yes but no because right now no one does anything against bullies". That's exactly what I'm saying. Giving people the ability to have tougher reactions and punishments on bullies will be a deterrent to bullying. That's how laws work in general. Why drug dealing isn't everyone's favorite job? Because the prison sentence behind it is a good deterrent to prevent people from doing so. It'd be the same here. Bullies bully people because people allow them to and people won't fight back, and the people you tell to help will do nothing. Changing that will prevent bullying, and you can do it by allowing teachers and students to report bullying situations to a police officer for example so the bully get charged with it. Okay. So this one is a bit of "common sense" as I've seen thrown around a lot in the later posts. Guns aren't like plants. They can't be grown out of the ground. You can't make a gun. It can't be manufactured by a single person. Therefore, where do you think the black market is getting its supplies? From the legal market. More guns on the legal market means more opportunities for a gun to be stolen and sold on the black market. Les guns on the legal market means less opportunities for a gun to be stolen and sold on the black market. Meaning it'd prove more difficult to find one on the black market, and with much higher prices because it'd be a more rare products (rare products are always more expensive). So, it's nice and all to say they can acquire illegal firearms, but you've to also think about "Where do those illegally acquired firearms come from?". I don't see how YOUR access to self defense would be restricted whatsoever. You're sane? You don't show paranoid signs (a bit doubtful on this one due to your incredible tendency to think everyone wants to push their agenda and can't judge anything without being corrupted)? You don't show signs of a dire need for a carnage? Then you get your gun. Your access would not be affected, whatsoever. You'd just pass a little test that barely last an hour or so to have an authorization to own and carry a gun. The access to people who actually are not fit to have a gun, on the other hand, would be affected and rightfully so. Someone who has suicidal ideas or urges of murder shouldn't be handed a gun with a pat on the back. Again, no one bats an eye when someone is judged unfit to be a police officer or enroled in the army after a psychological test. I don't see why in this case everyone would go batshit crazy about.

You're just focusing on one part of the problem. It's an issue that lies in two factors: 1/ the bullying in school, either 'normal' bullying as in one or more people harassing someone, or the more 'insidious' bullying of casting a student away for whatever reason and making them a marginal, and 2/ the easy access to firearms for people with mental issues. You're proposing to solve neither of those. Instead, you propose to prevent shootings from happening by putting guards and metal detectors, etc. That won't stop the bullied people to deal with that shit, nor will it stop people with rampage mental disorders to grab a gun and go for it. I'm talking about preemptively preventing the situation from happening. First, by making bullying situations to be dealt with more severely to reduce the amount of bullying in school. Maybe make it able for people to charge someone for bullying, that'd surely be a deterrent. And second, to prevent people with mental issues to have acces to firearms through a psychological background check. You do those two, and schools won't have to be turned into prison-like facilities, they'll remain an open space for students to just come and go as they will. Freedom, like you like to call it.

I mean, I understand your trail of thoughts, to make schools a safe haven for kids. That's a good thing to want them to be protected. But kids don't spend their lives in a school. They go out. Personally I've been bullied in high school, and the dudes bullying me were always outside the school, some of them weren't even students. Even if my school had been a real fortress like you're suggesting it should be, it wouldn't have protected me from them (not even gonna mention standing up to them as they were more than one, and dipping into some drug dealing shit, aka not afraid to break your bones if you pissed them off). Protecting schools and turning them into prison-like facilities will increase the kids safety inside. But you're disregarding the whole outside world. So what then, do we place one guard at every street corner to make sure kids don't get bullied or assaulted there too? Do we turn every street of every city into some kind of 1984 remake (yeah yeah standing up to the bullies and helping the ones who can't, you said violence was part of humanity, I say selfishness is equally part of humanity and people will always value their own issues before others)? Or do we actually adress the issue of people with mental issues having access to firearms which, not only would protect kids in school, but also out of school, and everywhere else for everyone else?

Standing up isn't for everyone. Not everyone has the strength, both physical and psychological, to stand up against people who bully them on a daily basis. And that's without mentioning that getting violent against bullies can very quickly take a turn for the worse, either by them calling some of their friends to beat the shit out of you, or worse, like bringing weapons (chains, bottles, knives). Fighting violence with violence is never the answer. It worked for you, that's good, doesn't mean it's the right course of action.

I mean... That's exactly how every other single law is made though. They call a bunch of experts, they gather data, analytics, the experts give a report to the lawmakers that will serve as a basis for a law. Why wouldn't it be possible for mental health? It's just an issue like another. Gather a bunch of doctors, psychiatrists and the likes, ask their opinion about it, what can be done, if you want to gather some security experts to know what can be done to make schools safer, you can do that as well, and boom, use their input to make a law best fitting what regarding what was collected.

That was my point. There are many real solutions. Improving mental health care and actively fighting bullying in school is one of them. Yet, do you see lawmakers moving their asses to do something about it? Of course not, they're glued to their seat. They'll say "Oh it's tragic", "Oh it shouldn't happen anymore", but in the mean time, what do they do to actually make it not happen anymore? Nothing. Because they're more focused on getting reelected rather than actually solving issues. That's why I wish all lawmakers and presidents could go for ONE mandate max, no reelection possible. That way, when they're elected, you know they'd do something because it has to be done, rather than focusing on the polls and how much they're liked to stay in their office longer.

There are real solutions to be fair, on many sides, the issue is the lack of conviction from politics to actually do something about it. To have guts for once in their lives and justify their indecent salary by doing something useful for society, the society that elected them and put them in their office.

My reaction when I heard about it: how surprising. Sad that it's happening so often I become jaded about it. Also, shooter has a greek name. Inb4 Trump decides to ban all greeks from entering the country, because it's obviously the issue :^)

Your hardware might be the issue, can't say without the specs.

That's not what I got from the news here. There's been 3 different bombings on different churches. Then some time later there has been another bombing on a police station. Both have been carried by families, IS claimed to be the perpetrators. and the bombing on the police station has seen a survivor in one of those families, the daughter, 8 years old.

I mean... Yeah it's bad for the officer, thoughts to him and all that. But with no info on the context of what happened, I don't really see the point of this thread and what is there to discuss.

Wasn't much of a migrant either anymore since he was a french national. He got the french nationality in 2010, and since it's a very long process, that means he probably arrived in France in the early 2000s when he was still a kid, along with his parents. The parents are currently being interrogated, and searches are ongoing in the east of the country. The attacker was listed as possibly dangerous individual due to indirect discussions he had with a person located in Syria.

1 dead. 4 injured. Attacker was shot dead by the police. No info on his indentity yet. ISIS claimed to be the author. Although nowadays I doubt of everything they claim to be theirs. If someone in the world choked on their cereals, they'd say they did it. They're dying so they desperately crave for attention. Edit: attacker is believed to be a French national of chechen origins (read he was NOT a migrant).

Didn't they say that for GTA V as well? Because we have seen the result, with pedestrians just sitting there or walking or answering a call. Doesn't feel really alive like peds could in a game like, Watch Dogs let's say.