By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Van attacks people outside of mosque in London

There is a difference between murders of mostly criminals on criminals then random ideological religious based terrorist attacks.



Around the Network
monocle_layton said:
Scoobes said:

Even with everything going on in London you really need to put this into context.

New York City has a slightly lower population than London but you're still three times more likely to be murdered (in 2015 352 in NY vs 118 in London). The recent terrorist attacks only increase the average annual number slightly. It's really not that dangerous considering the population and London has weathered some far more horrifying terrorist attacks in the days of the IRA. 

Very good point. London is still a very safe city- I just get paranoid easily. Last thing I'd want to see is the murder rate in London increase to anywhere near the levels of New York/Detroit/Chicago.

That's gonna be tough without guns around.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:

That's gonna be tough without guns around.

People have managed to murder each other without guns for thousands of years already

Not as quickly and efficiently as in certain US cities.

I'd like to bet that more people died in Chicago in the last 3 months than in London.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
Ka-pi96 said:

People have managed to murder each other without guns for thousands of years already

Not as quickly and efficiently as in certain US cities.

I'd like to bet that more people died in Chicago in the last 3 months than in London.

That has more to do with the mentality of the people behind those murders than the means in how they kill eachother. Taking away guns won't curb the violence. The mentality is much more dangerous. 



Aeolus451 said:
vivster said:

Not as quickly and efficiently as in certain US cities.

I'd like to bet that more people died in Chicago in the last 3 months than in London.

That has more to do with the mentality of the people behind those murders than the means in how they kill eachother. Taking away guns won't curb the violence. The mentality is much more dangerous. 

Guns make murders easier, more efficient and a lot of the time let the perpetrator escape to commit even more murders. We cannot change mentality, so trying to make it a lot harder for certain individuals should be a high priority project.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
monocle_layton said:
ironmanDX said:

In this massive country people are so desensitised to mass shootings most aren't even on the news anymore? It's a stupid exaggeration. You live in a glass house, I'd stop throwing stones.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

I never said the USA is perfect. I however didn't mention our ridiculous gun issue due to the fact that it holds no relevance in this topic. The last sentence was uncalled for. Had we been discussing gun violence, then I would've mentioned the flaws in my country

 

People are desensitised. What am I supposed to do about it? It's not my fault that hundreds of millions of guns are possessed by Americans. Not my fault that many of us think they'll magically protect us.

Hedra42 said:

Indeed, but it should be kept in context. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-killed-terrorist-attacks-uk/

Not belittling any of the terrorist incidents, including the one in Manchester, but it should also be kept in mind that many more people were killed in the tragic fire in London last week - the numbers are still rising as they are still trying to account for people.

And I doubt that the story of the forest fire in Portugal has made as big a splash your side of the pond, despite there being just as many people being killed as those in the London tower block. Different circumstances, but equally tragic.

Looking at the bigger picture informs.

 

 

Haven't seen much coverage of the Portugal fire. Last time I checked, it was at 50 victims. Now it's at 62. The building which was sent into flames is still changing by the day. Even if we assumed only 70 people died from the fire, that's 132 people who died from two events, one of which had little to no coverage for some odd reason.

 

The Manchester attack had approximately 20 people dead and 140 injured. However, factoring in environmental damage does show that these attacks are not as dangerous as things such as fires.

 

I get that the natural disaster(s) were more devastating. I actually do point that out often. However, will we see a series of attacks as time goes on, or is London simply unlucky currently?

 

Indeed, I haven't seen threads about neither the London fire nor the fores fires in portugal here on VGC. Maybe some were created, but in that case they died down way quicked than any thread about these terrorist attacks. I find it sort of worrying that people let such a small aspect of cases largely dominate their way of thinking.

About 13000 people in France alone died from multiresistant bacterial strains in 2012. No doubt a number that has only grown. Yet this gets oh so little attention from neither the media nor from people. Yet I remember reading a news article which said terrorism was the most important factor for the french people when making their decision on who to vote for.

And 40000 people died in traffic in the US last year, and almost 5 million injured.

Terrorism is a problem, yes, but it gets blown way out of proportions. It's a big problem in Syria, Pakistan, Nigeria and Iraq, especially if you include ISIS more "normal" military actions as terrorism. But it's not that big a problem in the west.



vivster said:
Aeolus451 said:

That has more to do with the mentality of the people behind those murders than the means in how they kill eachother. Taking away guns won't curb the violence. The mentality is much more dangerous. 

Guns make murders easier, more efficient and a lot of the time let the perpetrator escape to commit even more murders. We cannot change mentality, so trying to make it a lot harder for certain individuals should be a high priority project.

You can change the mentality by going after the sources of it through education, changing culture, and jailing the extreme elements. It would have alot of long term benefits to the area or people affected by it.

It's already hard to get guns legally. People who have records can't buy any gun legally. Since we can't read people's minds or watch people's social media in real time, there's not much else you can do with "make more gun laws". The current gun laws need to be enforced and we need to go after black market guns wherever they are. From what I've seen, no one is really serious about dealing with the murders. People can't be honest about it.

 Guns seem like they're easier or more efficient but they really aren't unless in the hands of skilled and trained individuals. The chances of catching someone who uses a gun to kill another person illegally is very high. There are far worse things a person could do that's a lot more difficult to catch. 



Teeqoz said:
monocle_layton said:

I never said the USA is perfect. I however didn't mention our ridiculous gun issue due to the fact that it holds no relevance in this topic. The last sentence was uncalled for. Had we been discussing gun violence, then I would've mentioned the flaws in my country

 

People are desensitised. What am I supposed to do about it? It's not my fault that hundreds of millions of guns are possessed by Americans. Not my fault that many of us think they'll magically protect us.

Haven't seen much coverage of the Portugal fire. Last time I checked, it was at 50 victims. Now it's at 62. The building which was sent into flames is still changing by the day. Even if we assumed only 70 people died from the fire, that's 132 people who died from two events, one of which had little to no coverage for some odd reason.

 

The Manchester attack had approximately 20 people dead and 140 injured. However, factoring in environmental damage does show that these attacks are not as dangerous as things such as fires.

 

I get that the natural disaster(s) were more devastating. I actually do point that out often. However, will we see a series of attacks as time goes on, or is London simply unlucky currently?

 

Indeed, I haven't seen threads about neither the London fire nor the fores fires in portugal here on VGC. Maybe some were created, but in that case they died down way quicked than any thread about these terrorist attacks. I find it sort of worrying that people let such a small aspect of cases largely dominate their way of thinking.

About 13000 people in France alone died from multiresistant bacterial strains in 2012. No doubt a number that has only grown. Yet this gets oh so little attention from neither the media nor from people. Yet I remember reading a news article which said terrorism was the most important factor for the french people when making their decision on who to vote for.

And 40000 people died in traffic in the US last year, and almost 5 million injured.

Terrorism is a problem, yes, but it gets blown way out of proportions. It's a big problem in Syria, Pakistan, Nigeria and Iraq, especially if you include ISIS more "normal" military actions as terrorism. But it's not that big a problem in the west.

I mean, using ISIS allows politicians to easily convince people to support them. Trump used ISIS, Bush used weapons of mass destruction, and so forth.

 

The media also plays a role in this. The Orlando shooting wasn't even one of the top 10 terrorist attacks, and yet it received 24/7 coverage for several weeks. It was to the point where places like CNN pointed out pointless details (such as the shooter's girlfriend struggling in school). Then look at the Saudi bombing which killed 100+ people at a FUNERAL and you won't even hear crickets.

 

It's hypocritical, but I don't think some people care if they stand to gain nothing from it



Ka-pi96 said:
monocle_layton said:

I mean, using ISIS allows politicians to easily convince people to support them. Trump used ISIS, Bush used weapons of mass destruction, and so forth.

 

The media also plays a role in this. The Orlando shooting wasn't even one of the top 10 terrorist attacks, and yet it received 24/7 coverage for several weeks. It was to the point where places like CNN pointed out pointless details (such as the shooter's girlfriend struggling in school). Then look at the Saudi bombing which killed 100+ people at a FUNERAL and you won't even hear crickets.

 

It's hypocritical, but I don't think some people care if they stand to gain nothing from it

The US media puts significantly more focus on stuff that happens in the US than stuff that happens half way around the world? I'm shocked, absolutely shocked :O

I agree with that but the media is very selective on what on focuses on in general. That attack on republican congressmen at that ballpark by a crazy leftist is nowhere to be seen on the news that I can see except on Fox. The vast majority of liberal new sites aren't mentioning it all. 



Use logic and common sense.

50 people are murdered in cold blood in a club in Orlando

People die in bombings in a place full of warfare and conflict for decades (the middle east)

Its not hypocritical or odd the media focus on Orlando, because the viewership can easily relate going to a nightclub and getting shot at then life in Syria...