Tag Archive for 'news'

It’s not just guns

While browsing through Reddit today, I came across a news story about an 18-year-old actor in the upcoming Harry Potter movie who was fatally stabbed. Sad stuff, really. He was protecting his younger brother from some maniac with a knife who was stabbing a lot of people outside a bar. The article then went on about knife attack statistics and how much of a problem stabbing is in Britain.

That got me thinking. In modern times, Britain has restricted use of firearms since 1903, banned automatic weapons since the 1930s, and finally went all-out and banned handguns in 1997 after a brutal massacre the year before. As a result, shooting deaths have stayed fairly low. After all, if you make it impossible to get firearms legally, only people willing to break the law will be able to get them. That’s a reasonably small amount of the population (7% of the homicides committed in 2005 and 2006 involved guns). Even so, I am against gun control that gets too strict. To quote the overquoted: guns don’t kill, crazy people with guns do.

At any rate, the British don’t much have to worry about people getting shot by their neighbor. What they do have to worry about, though, is getting stabbed by their neighbor. Guns are far from being the only lethal objects around. The average person has access to plenty of dangerous things without having to get a gun. Steak knife? Check. Blowtorch? Check. Automobile? Double check.

It seems to me that banning guns doesn’t solve the underlying problem, which is, of course, people getting killed by other people. Banning knives wouldn’t help, either, since a person could use a sharpened screwdriver. Banning screwdrivers wouldn’t help because there’s always the last resort of bare hands. Problem: you has it.

Since I’m not a psychologist (even though I did take that animal psychology class in college), I won’t go into great detail, but from a layman’s point of view, it looks like it would be more productive to address the why of homicide, instead of the how. In other words, figure out and eliminate the cause of violent crime. It doesn’t really matter what people use to kill each other with. It matters that they kill each other in the first place. Of course, it’s a much larger undertaking to fix society than it is to take away society’s toys. But it can be done. After all, utopia is a realistic possibility, right? Right? Or am I preaching to the anarchist choir?

Sphere: Related Content

Slightly disturbing

So, apparently, a group of third graders at Georgia school got upset with a teacher and plotted to knock her out, tie her up, and stab her with a steak knife. No, really. They actually brought supplies (a paperweight to knock her out, handcuffs and tape to bind her hands) and assigned different duties (one student would have covered the windows, another would have cleaned up afterwards). Nobody knows if they really intended to harm the teacher, but it’s kind of scary that they even got this far. Luckily, they were outed before they implemented their plan. It makes me wonder what would have happened, though. Third graders can be persistent buggers, and I don’t know if I’d be able to withstand 9 of them attacking me with blunt objects.

But it certainly shows a lot about kids in the 8 to 10 age range when you look at their motive: they were angry with the teacher for scolding one of them for standing on a chair. Wow.

Sphere: Related Content

Separated at birth

I always wondered if siblings could end up marrying each other without realizing it (no, I don’t have an incest fetish). I couldn’t think of any realistic way for this to happen. Fortunately, I don’t have to wonder any more. Apparently, twins who were separated at birth in Britain married each other without realizing that they were related, and only after they were married did they find out that they were brother and sister. Of course, this leads me to wonder how long after the marriage they got the news…ew.

That’s my random news story of the day/week/month/eon. Enjoy.

Sphere: Related Content

News, news, and less news

Good news is hard to come by these days. Flipping through the channels today, I came across a preview for “Britney in Crisis”…on CNN Headline News. Um, isn’t that something that belongs on E!, or maybe even Bravo? MSNBC was busy focusing on how Hilary Clinton put on a fake and calculated show of emotion (regular CNN was doing the same, minus the fake), and Fox News was doing their usual job of being bad at everything. Generally, I can count on Fox to at least being showing important things (as opposed to washed up celebrities), but Bill O’Reilly and this video kind of ruined that. A lot. Besides, I prefer pundits of the Colbert school of thought.

I eventually gave up on watching any news that wasn’t related to New Hampshire, so I settled on the Daily Show, which at least told me what I wanted to hear. It was also a good chance to see how Jon Stewart was getting along without any writers. Fortunately for him, the primaries and the accompanying news show clips provided enough laughs that he didn’t need to do much else. The strange metaphors everyone was using for the Clinton campaign were awesome (seriously, “a soufflé doesn’t rise twice”?) and his guest, John Zogby of Zogby International, was one of the better ones. And I learned what was going on in the world! Who knew a Comedy Central show without screenwriters could teach me current events? At least I didn’t have to hear about “Britney in Crisis”. Perhaps I should send an open letter to Britney et al: “Dear useless celebrities, please stop doing crazy things in public so I don’t have to deal with seeing you anymore. Sincerely, someone who never liked you.” Then another to CNN asking where they lost their credibility.

I also saw a trailer for the new Rambo. It made me wonder how bad it must sting for the bad guys to get whipped by a 60-something movie star. Also, Will Smith is a scientologist. I picked that up on the Colbert Report. Hurray for satirical news shows!

Sphere: Related Content

No more Colbert for President

Can anyone say “conspiracy”? Steven Colbert’s presidential run has been smashed to pieces by the humorless Democratic executive council of South Carolina, which voted 13-3 to deny his application to be put on the ballot as a Democrat. As Waring Howe, a member of the council, put it Colbert “serves to detract from the serious candidates on the ballot.” But Dennis Kucinich, the guy who sees UFOs, is allowed on? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Not all the members of the council lacked a sense of humor. State Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (who I think outranks Mr. Missed-the-Point Howe, there) chided the people who voted against Colbert’s name being put on the ballot as taking things a little too seriously. I happen to agree. Yes, Colbert’s run was a stunt aimed at publicizing his show. But he could have brought a lot of publicity to South Carolina through it. It’s not every day you get a favorite son with a much-loved faux-news show. I mean, how many times has Bill O’Reilly extolled his home state? Or Anderson Cooper? Pshaw.

Unfortunately, Colbert can’t run as a Republican, either, since he missed the filing deadline to apply for a spot on the ballot. I can’t blame him, though. Whereas the fee for the Democrat Party was only $2,500 (fully refunded after his denial), the fee for the Republicans was a whopping $35,000. Um, okay. Either the Democrats have really low standards or the Republicans think too highly of themselves…wait…right, I forgot: both are true.

Anyways, I was so looking forward to those Colbert for President bumper stickers…guess I’ll have to stick with the Picard-Riker one for now. Also, if you’re interested, I came across a very handy replacement for Wikipedia. Guaranteed to have more truthiness than Wikipedia will ever have.

Sphere: Related Content




Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States