Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by botverse » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 8:33 AM UTC

drawkbox wrote: post #231

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #81

It's us , the USA, that is causing this paper to shutdown. The cartels are financed by the insatiable drug appetite of its close neighbor. Our inability and/or unwillingness to legalize recreational drugs is the feeding tube for these vicious groups.

The War on Drugs is now taking down free press in other countries, it is has gone too far for too long. It is essentially funding terror and when you see the billions being made in only a few states such as Colorado with 1+ billion in 2016 [1]. Large amounts of wealth, probably 50-100+ billion going to cartels in the south annually to fund very bad things. Prohibition always creates a criminal black market that becom…

That sounds reasonable but is naive and does not take into account how corrupt people are. John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon said:

"The Nixon campaign in 1968 and the Nixon White House after that had two enemies: the antiwar Left and black people... We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black. But by getting the public to associate hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily"[1]

So taking into account things like cultural prejudice. Those things are unlikely to be fixed just with good will and altruism.

[1] http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9659888

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

#412

Post by sametmax » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 10:23 AM UTC

TenOhms wrote: post #364

briandear wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Guns are a solution in the right hands, that's what the founders believed, and if these stats are correct it proves that they can be used responsibly if society is stable enough. I think we're approaching a time though when guns will be a net negative, but by then, the USA will cease to exist as we know it today.

History has way more moments where guns were used for terrible things that good things.

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

#413

Post by avar » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 10:27 AM UTC

lorenzhs wrote: post #410

avar wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misreading the graph[1]. The 2-7 grouping is all gun deaths, homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths. If you hover over individual blue counties you can see the breakdown by homicide and suicide rate for some of them. E.g. Washington, NY has a gun homicide rate of 0.46, gun suicide rate of 5.14. Meanwhile The Netherlands has a gun homicide rate of 0.29, gun suicide rate of 0.28, but an overall homicide rate…

Pretty sure I'm not. The 0.58/100k figure for the Netherlands includes all gun deaths, too. Washington, NY, has a population of The fact remains that the US have a gun homicide rate of 3.43/100k, compared to the Netherlands' 0.29/100k (12x), Germany's 0.07/100k (49x), France's 0.21/100k (16x), the UK's 0.06/100k (57x), or Spain's 0.15/100k (23x). That's an order of magnitude difference for all of these countries , wi…

This reply is correctly refuting an argument that I'm not making. If I was saying that the gun homicide rate anywhere in the EU & the US was comparable I'd be wrong, as you say it's off by orders of magnitude.

What I am saying is that comparing homicides by weapon type ignores the big picture, which is who cares in the end whether you're killed by a gun, a knife, or bludgeoned to death? You're going to be just as dead.

The availability of guns in the US means that when there's a homicide or a suicide it's vastly more likely to involve a gun than in the EU, but people focus on that statistic and assume that magically taking away the guns would drastically improve the situation.

That's not supported by the data. The people of Lithuania, which for some in the US would match some ideal they have of restrictive gun laws, manage to kill each other at a higher overall rate than pepole in the US, even though they have gun restrictions to the point where only 1% of those homicides involve a gun.

So yes, if you look at the US by firearm related death rate[1] alone it looks like a 3rd world hellhole. But comparing countries by death rate by specific implement makes no sense. Instead you have to look at the overall homicide rate[2] and the overall suicide rate[3].

Once you do that, several countries in Europe look worse when it comes to homicides, and the US is exceeded by the likes of France when it comes to overall suicide rates.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...

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

#414

Post by Pica_soO » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 10:36 AM UTC

mter wrote: post #363

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…

> You're 20 times more likely to get killed by a gun in the US This is very misleading because this audience is primarily middle class/rich white/asians employed in the tech industry. There are 2 primary factors in homicide rates. Be poor or be a certain race. If you are not either of those things, your chances of being murdered in the US is very low. *edit 3 factors -- men. Women don't get murdered often.

There are 4 factors.. emergency services and doctors. Fast responders, can save a gunshot victim from becoming a thread to officials via statistics, and allow him to have a happy vegetative state existence ever after.

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

#415

Post by hwillis » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 11:56 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #400

hwillis wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Take away the federal money and the states won't be able to afford it. Or won't want to pay it. The problem isn't social security, it's schools and healthcare. >And it's not like you can just leave children to grow up without schools or let infections go untreated. Having actually looked it up, federal funding is only 13% of public education ie it would be absolutely trivial to require states to fund state green car…

> Having actually looked it up, federal funding is only 13% of public education ie it would be absolutely trivial to require states to fund state green card immigrants. You're forgetting that the federal money goes disproportionately to schools in poorer areas, i.e. exactly the schools in question and the ones who can't afford to lose the money. > Likewise emergency healthcare isn't federally subsidized. Well that's…

Title 1 federal funding is $1000 per disadvantaged student. It's an insignificant amount of money compared to state funded education. Any state funding is totally irrelevant because the states will decide that problems. Likewise healthcare is funded inside states. You're confusing the issues.

ACA premiums are a good point, as they do apply to permanent residents. Empirically this would result in decreases in costs due to preventative treatment, but politically it is a sticking point. Medicaid (not medicare, which is for retirees) is not affected.

Regardless, the point is not to engineer a perfect solution, its to make an improvement by moving the burden of illegal immigrants in red states to blue states. The burden is lowered more than would be otherwise be allowed. This would remove 90% of the burden.

>If you set a quota at the current number then you aren't actually solving the problem, because more will come hoping to get one of the slots and then you have more people than slots. If you set no quota then the number goes up even more.

The inflow of illegal immigrants is 25x smaller than the number of current illegal immigrants. The people who want to be here are already here. In economic terms the elasticity of human survival is very low. The supply is nearly constant regardless of how easy it is to get in and stay. 96% of illegal immigrants are here already. Even if it becomes twice as attractive to come into the US under this system, 92% of the people moving to blue states will already live in the US.

It is far more likely that this would be a minor attraction- the ability to get a social security card is a tiny improvement to your quality of life compared to escaping violence and poverty. It is far more likely that immigration, legal or not, will not be affected significantly. Even if this makes moving to the US 25% more attractive, 95% of immigrants will already live in the US.

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

#416

Post by teddythetwig » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 12:30 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #301

teddythetwig wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Wha…

Man, I have to ask if you even read past the first sentence of my comment... Yes, I'm sure that the homicide rate of Rotterdam may be higher than some podunk midwestern town. What I said though, is that I feel safer living in Amsterdam over some of the US cities where I have also lived. Your statistics show that ALL of these cities(DC, Philly, NYC, SF, and LA) are objectively more dangerous to live in than Amsterdam. I'm sure you are trying to dispel something you see as a common myth, but maybe you should try having a conversation instead of giving a sermon.

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

#417

Post by lorenzhs » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 2:01 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #413

lorenzhs wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure I'm not. The 0.58/100k figure for the Netherlands includes all gun deaths, too. Washington, NY, has a population of The fact remains that the US have a gun homicide rate of 3.43/100k, compared to the Netherlands' 0.29/100k (12x), Germany's 0.07/100k (49x), France's 0.21/100k (16x), the UK's 0.06/100k (57x), or Spain's 0.15/100k (23x). That's an order of magnitude difference for all of these countries , wi…

This reply is correctly refuting an argument that I'm not making. If I was saying that the gun homicide rate anywhere in the EU & the US was comparable I'd be wrong, as you say it's off by orders of magnitude. What I am saying is that comparing homicides by weapon type ignores the big picture, which is who cares in the end whether you're killed by a gun, a knife, or bludgeoned to death? You're going to be just as dea…

Again you single out Lithuania, completely ignoring that most European countries have a homicide rate that is 2–4x lower than that in the US. Let's just check a few: France 1.2, Germany 0.9, UK 0.9, Italy 0.8, Spain 0.7, Poland 0.7, Austria 0.5, Switzerland 0.5, Netherlands 0.7, Belgium 1.8, United States 3.9.

How do you look at this data and conclude "yup, the EU is just as bad as the US"? Instead you focus on the Baltic states and the Balkans, which is not what people commonly have in mind when you refer to Europe.

And no, we're still not talking about suicides. They are completely orthogonal to homicides. Stop injecting them into the discussion.

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

#418

Post by brilliantcode » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 2:59 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #140

brilliantcode wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone doubts the contents of the quoted text, they can copy paste it into Google and discover numerous websites pointing at it. That will guide you to the right source. Possibly someone downvoted it because they fall under the same establishment or an offspring of that 'Murica generation. edit: I don't understand the downvotes. This comment contains instructions on how to find the desired source of my original co…

> This comment contains instructions on how to find the desired source of my original comment which was actually published and publicized in printed media. Then why is it so hard to include it yourself? It's poor form to make statements from sources and omit those sources. Unless you typed that from memory, you had one of those sources handy when you made the comment, so you could have included it easily, rather than…

This isn't wikipedia.

If someone is so concerned about sources, they can include it in the reply after the parent.

Nobody likes people who complain but won't do anything about it.

If the lack of citation bothers you so much, maybe you should include it yourself. Nobody else gives a shit in case you haven't noticed.

The original comment had no citation yet it received upvotes, contrary to your view of HN. Everyone is intimate with Google and they can follow the instructions in this thread to find the appropriate sources. If you want citation in the format you find in academic papers, that is on you, not the original commentator.

I can't help you any further but there are plenty of comments being posted as we speak that lack citations, you better get on that quick!

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

#419

Post by brilliantcode » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 3:13 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #166

kbenson wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This comment contains instructions on how to find the desired source of my original comment which was actually published and publicized in printed media. Then why is it so hard to include it yourself? It's poor form to make statements from sources and omit those sources. Unless you typed that from memory, you had one of those sources handy when you made the comment, so you could have included it easily, rather than…

I've always been kind of curious how the people who fill threads with quotes work. Do they have macro hot keys? A spreadsheet of quotes? (In some cases, the first google result for a quote is a page explaining that the quote is fake, so either they have some system that avoids google or they just ignore results they don't like.)

Have you heard of his hip new tool called Google? You can find any quote you want.

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

#420

Post by kbenson » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 3:13 PM UTC

brilliantcode wrote: post #418

kbenson wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This comment contains instructions on how to find the desired source of my original comment which was actually published and publicized in printed media. Then why is it so hard to include it yourself? It's poor form to make statements from sources and omit those sources. Unless you typed that from memory, you had one of those sources handy when you made the comment, so you could have included it easily, rather than…

This isn't wikipedia. If someone is so concerned about sources, they can include it in the reply after the parent. Nobody likes people who complain but won't do anything about it. If the lack of citation bothers you so much, maybe you should include it yourself. Nobody else gives a shit in case you haven't noticed. The original comment had no citation yet it received upvotes, contrary to your view of HN. Everyone is…

> This isn't wikipedia.

No, it's a forum where the norm is that if you are going to make factual assertions where you aren't the source, you should include the source.

> If someone is so concerned about sources, they can include it in the reply after the parent.

Which is just making everyone else do your work for you. It's fine, if you want to make assertions and not include sources, you'll either be ignored by some number of people, or depending on how different the assertion is to their worldview, possibly downvoted.

If you're interested in having a discussion, sources help. If you're just interested in putting your mark down and saying something because you have the urge, then they don't really matter.