Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 435 posts

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#291

Post by andrepd »

deerpig wrote: post #227
douche wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately England sold out Hong Kong

They didn't have much choice. The new territories had to go back because they were leased. So all that they could have held on to was Hong Kong island and Kowloon. There wasn't the infrastructure to maintain those areas. And China was a very different place in those days, the insane crap that they said to the British during handover negotiations made anything Donald Trump saying today look intelligent... It was a str…

Slightly? As far as I know, the United Kingdom is a democracy while China is an oppressive, imperialist, authoritarian state under oligarchic rule, with complete disregard for human rights or the cries for independence and democracy from its dependencies. Would it be ruled by Britain instead of China there would be a world of difference, don't kid yourself.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#292

Post by briandear »

mattmanser wrote: post #262
diamondo25 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living in the Netherlands, I know that people with bad intentions most likely have guns. Even in my small hometown, a citizen that owned a spy equipment store got shot up in daylight in front of his home. Other example would be people getting robbed in their house with guns (not daily, but it happens). There are plenty of other examples... I cannot say I feel 100% save most of the time.

It might not make you feel better, but Holland's gun death per 100,000 is in the 0.5's compared to the U.S.'s 10's and Mexico's 10's. You're 20 times more likely to get killed by a gun in the US or Mexico. Note that in the whole of Holland there are 50 gun homicides per year, so you were actually pretty unlucky to experience that. Your experience is exceptional and not a common occurrence, especially as I assume most…

The gun homicide rate in the US is 4.5.

The US has roughly 110 guns per 100,000 people and 4.5 gun homicides per 100,000 people.

Mexico has over 20 gun homicides per 100,000 people and about 18 guns per 100,000 people.

Canada has 2 gun murders per 100,000 people and 31 guns per 100,000 people.

Mexico: each gun is responsible for 1.11 murders

US: each gun is responsible for .04 murders

Canada: each gun is responsible for .07 murders.

Interestingly, the Bahamas has 30 gun murders per 100,000 and about 4 guns per 100,000. That's 7.5 murders per gun.

France has 2.8 gun murders per 100k and 31 guns per 100,000. Which makes each gun responsible for .09 murders -- slightly higher than both the US and Canada, despite far stricter laws.

The U.K. Has .23 gun murders and 6.6 guns -- so .35 murders per gun.

Sweden has 1.47 murders per 100k with 31.6 guns for a rate of .047 murders per gun.

Nicaragua has 4.68 murders with 7.7 guns -- each gun is part of 1.65 murders.

Jamaica: 31 murders/8 guns.

Denmark: 1.28/12 guns

Israel: 2.09/7.3 guns

Brazil: 21.2/8 guns

Australia: .93/21.7 guns

My point: gun ownership does not correlate to gun murder rates -- in fact one could make a case that increased gun ownership could actually reduce gun murder rates.

Despite having more guns per capita than most countries, the overall US murder rate ranks 108 out of 218, with Honduras topping the list (incidentally Honduras has 67 murders and 6.2 guns per 100,000)

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#293

Post by briandear »

sametmax wrote: post #285
diamondo25 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living in the Netherlands, I know that people with bad intentions most likely have guns. Even in my small hometown, a citizen that owned a spy equipment store got shot up in daylight in front of his home. Other example would be people getting robbed in their house with guns (not daily, but it happens). There are plenty of other examples... I cannot say I feel 100% save most of the time.

If you have a gun you are not safer. It leads to escalation and more people die. We are not at war, guns are not the solution.

You are less likely to attack someone if there is the risk that person has a gun. Just like you are less likely to speed in your car if there's a cop driving next to you.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#294

Post by petra »

runeks wrote: post #260
m1sta_ wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legalisation is one part of it. The purchasing is another. The cartel is another. In that order.

I disagree. Prohibition transforms capital spent by drug users into income for drug cartels. Under full legalization, drug users would have as little incentive to buy their drugs from street vendors as alcoholics would want to buy their liquor from some guy standing on a street corner. The great news is that we are entirely responsible for this mess ourselves, so we can fix it if we want to.

The problem with full legalization is that you are making it easy for people to get the route to drug addiction.

Maybe legalization for only people who are proven addicts, but are probably the bulk of the cartel revenue would give a more favorable result ?

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#295

Post by lliiffee »

briandear wrote: post #292
mattmanser wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not make you feel better, but Holland's gun death per 100,000 is in the 0.5's compared to the U.S.'s 10's and Mexico's 10's. You're 20 times more likely to get killed by a gun in the US or Mexico. Note that in the whole of Holland there are 50 gun homicides per year, so you were actually pretty unlucky to experience that. Your experience is exceptional and not a common occurrence, especially as I assume most…

The gun homicide rate in the US is 4.5. The US has roughly 110 guns per 100,000 people and 4.5 gun homicides per 100,000 people. Mexico has over 20 gun homicides per 100,000 people and about 18 guns per 100,000 people. Canada has 2 gun murders per 100,000 people and 31 guns per 100,000 people. Mexico: each gun is responsible for 1.11 murders US: each gun is responsible for .04 murders Canada: each gun is responsible…

I think you're making the argument that with more guns, countries tend to have fewer gun deaths per gun. This makes sense, casually. However, I doubt that anyone cares about the number of gun murders per gun, but rather the total number of gun murders, which is (please correct me if wrong) still correlated with more guns.

Also, I see that you've focused the discussion on gun murders, which is fine, but we should note that decreased gun ownership does lead to far fewer gun deaths, mostly by reducing suicides.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#296

Post by krapp »

petra wrote: post #294
runeks wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Prohibition transforms capital spent by drug users into income for drug cartels. Under full legalization, drug users would have as little incentive to buy their drugs from street vendors as alcoholics would want to buy their liquor from some guy standing on a street corner. The great news is that we are entirely responsible for this mess ourselves, so we can fix it if we want to.

The problem with full legalization is that you are making it easy for people to get the route to drug addiction. Maybe legalization for only people who are proven addicts, but are probably the bulk of the cartel revenue would give a more favorable result ?

> The problem with full legalization is that you are making it easy for people to get the route to drug addiction.

That's already an acceptable risk with cigarettes and alcohol, and marijuana in some places, why should it not be acceptable for everything else?

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#297

Post by teddythetwig »

diamondo25 wrote: post #256
sametmax wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there is a huge difference between Europe and the US/Mexico: most people don't have guns. You will rarely see anybody with a weapon here. If you get attacked, it will be with fists, sometime a knife. Having the possibility that somebody pulls a gun on you is crazy to me, like something that should only happen in a movie.

Living in the Netherlands, I know that people with bad intentions most likely have guns. Even in my small hometown, a citizen that owned a spy equipment store got shot up in daylight in front of his home. Other example would be people getting robbed in their house with guns (not daily, but it happens). There are plenty of other examples... I cannot say I feel 100% save most of the time.

I have to say, you are really over exaggerating. Gun violence is just not a reality you have to be worried about here. Amsterdam is nothing like any US city where I've lived(in terms of violence on a daily basis), and The Netherlands as a whole is extremely safe.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#298

Post by orcdork »

branchless wrote: post #144
_delirium wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When were you last in central London or Paris? It's been a long time since Limehouse or Montparnasse were dangerous to walk in at night.

Head out of canary wharf onto the isle of dogs. Or parts of peckham. Or West Ham. Christ.

Buddy, what wonderful drug are you on? Writing this from isle of dogs, which is damn awesome, and extremely safe.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#299

Post by nakedrobot2 »

3131s wrote: post #199
brooklynmarket wrote: post #128

Can someone explain to me, what would happen if Mexico tomorrow, all drugs were legal like Portugal? Could it get any worse. Portugal seems to doing just fine.

Just to clarify, drugs are not legal in Portugal. There is decriminalization on small amounts, but not full legalization. However, Portugal's experiment is a resounding success and I'd expect even greater benefits from legalization (e.g. tax money derived from the industry around recreational drugs).

Well yes but this is a nitpick in my opinion. Drug possession in personal amounts is not a criminal offense. So they are no longer "super illegal" you could say. It's in the same category as a driving offense or something like that. Same in Czech Republic.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#300

Post by rtpg »

drchickensalad wrote: post #289
rtpg wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's the murder rate measured on? Chicago is already almost 1% of the population, so I don't see how the murder rate per capita is 50 or 100 times the national average. Also "200 million Americans don't even live in areas with bad stats" is another way of saying "100 million Americans live in areas with high murder rates"... seems like a larger issue than you're implying

Some neighborhoods != All of Chicago

right, I get that. But is it like.. 10% of Chicago? 1%?

If it's 20% of Chicago but has 50-100x the national per capita average, that's pretty crazy. If it's one house where everyone in the house was murdered (1 murder per capita!), well it's not really representative of much.

Post reply on HN