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

301–310 of 435 posts

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

#301

Post by avar »

teddythetwig wrote: post #297
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.

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.

As another resident of Amsterdam. I don't think your impression of the situation really matches up with statistics. Look at these two articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... http://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths

Here you can see the gun death rate in The Netherlands per 100k inhabitants is 0.58, but there's some areas in the US where the rate is quite comparable.

What really sets things apart is the suicide rate, most deaths by guns in the US are by suicide, but there's counties in the US where there's easy access to guns and the overall death rate is lower than the Dutch gun violence + non-gun suicides.

So in a lot of cases it's not that just having guns makes everything hyper-violent. It's just that if people feel like killing themselves they'll use the best available instrument available to them.

Conflating that with general gun safety as it pertains to you feeling safe walking around Amsterdam, but not in a comparable town in the US, is silly.

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

#302

Post by Cyph0n »

andrepd wrote: post #290
Cyph0n wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, their human rights track record is terrible, but even with that, Dubai is still safer than most other large cities. What do you mean by "tourists"? Did you miss the part where I say that I lived in the UAE for 14 years?

"Yep they commit atrocious humans rights violations and systematically abuse migrant workers, but at least you can leave your car unlocked." And Mussolini made the trains run on time.

I'm just stating facts here, no need to get emotional mate.

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

#303

Post by PeterisP »

pjc50 wrote: post #257
_delirium wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Cornishman, this is basically what's taught in the schools, yes. You live in a godforsaken suburb miles out of London but you pretend that, unlike us, you somehow live in a city. ;-)

"isle of dogs. Or parts of peckham. Or West Ham." All of these places are in London . They have London postcodes, are inside the M25, and are administered by the Mayor of London.

Pretty much every major city worldwide has large suburbs that have their postcodes and are administered by the same municipal government, but they're clearly not included in the "European city center" designation. They are part of the city, but not part of the city center; and for a multimillion city the difference (and distances!) are significant.

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

#304

Post by Cyph0n »

realusername wrote: post #250
Cyph0n wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, their human rights track record is terrible, but even with that, Dubai is still safer than most other large cities. What do you mean by "tourists"? Did you miss the part where I say that I lived in the UAE for 14 years?

You are probably not an Indian construction worker.

I'm not. Read my bio. But a fact is a fact: Dubai is one of the safest cities in the world.

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

#305

Post by ambentzen »

briandear wrote: post #293
sametmax wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You are less likely to attack someone if there is the risk that person has a gun.

I don't believe that. I think that the calculus of whether to attack someone skips the "is the victim armed?" question. You just make sure to bring overwhelming force, e.g. bring a gun to a (probable) gun fight or a knife to a fist fight.

But what do I know. I'm just an European wuss, who has fire a handgun exactly once.

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

#306

Post by Cyph0n »

andrepd wrote: post #291
deerpig wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you name a democratic country with 1 billion+ people that has achieved what China has in such a short period of time? Nope. Do you think China would have progressed the same if it wasn't managed as an autocracy?

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

#307

Post by avar »

osullivj wrote: post #275
vetinari wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be surprised, how many guns are there in Europe[1]. However, if you carry gun, it must be hidden, otherwise you could lose your permit. Breaking law with legally held weapon is a rare thing (who would like lo lose it, right?). If someone breaks law with the gun, it will be illegal one. [1] Except Britain. They can legally have only long guns, without cartridges. Basically only for hunting.

Yes, British firearms law changed after the Dunblane massacre [1] to outlaw handguns. The Hungerford massacre [2] in the 80s caused the outlawing of semi-automatics. I live in rural England, and many friends and neighbours have shotguns and hunting rifles. I was surprised to discover that a couple of the rifle owners use silencers too. Silencers do have a legitimate application; they confuse the directional hearing o…

Silencers also mitigate hearing loss & noise pollution.

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

#308

Post by PeterisP »

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 ?

Why do you consider that full legalization is making it easy for people to get the route to drug addiction?

In general, lack of availability is not a strong limiting factor even in countries with full criminalization; illegal drugs can be bought by anyone willing, there exists a market in any population center.

On the other hand, drugs being available in a controlled environment makes it easier to recover from addiction, and also limits the proliferation of various highly addictive chemicals which wouldn't be preferred or used by anyone if e.g. simpler opiates were available.

Saying that full legalization will cause a huge increase in drug addiction sounds plausible, but what evidence we have (e.g. Portugal decriminalization) shows that it doesn't really cause any disaster.

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

#309

Post by briandear »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #135
mikeash wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving immigration to the states would require internal border controls. This is not something most people want.

The EU manages to have immigration on a per-nation basis (for non-EU countries), without internal border controls.

Actually there are Schengen border controls which are not the same thing. You cross outside of Schengen and you do border controls. Go from France to the U.K. for example -- even pre-Brexit.

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

#310

Post by saiya-jin »

ifdefdebug wrote: post #281
bflesch wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people who are into doing criminal things actually have guns here in Europe. Our open borders allow people to drive a trunk full of guns from Turkish border directly to Berlin, and they regularly catch guys doing that. Only the people who get attacked don't have any guns, and they get fucked up.

> Only the people who get attacked don't have any guns, and > they get fucked up. If you fail to take regular firearm training, combat training or to acquire the necessary mindset for a gunfight under live threat, then you are even more fucked if you try to use that gun you are carrying to make you feel safer...

don't make such a drama out of it - every owner should know how to use the gun quickly and safely in the same time. this doesn't require any serious continuous commitment and owner is obviously in all cases in massive advantage if something horrible happens (imagine being there during Paris massacre and having a possibility to make a difference with your legal handgun)
Post reply on HN