EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 366
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22374 Posts
On January 08 2016 05:14 Rassy wrote: What did happen in koln and also other citys in Germany and swiss should be the end of the European immigration policys and maybe even Europe. Am surprised there is no thread about this but I am not gonna burn myself by making one. The majority of the population does not support the way in wich the authoritys handle the refugees and immigrants. They do not support it at all. Yet politics continues with their own agenda. There is no way that the population will keep accepting this. Germany probably still wont dare to vote extreme right wing because of their history,but this does not go for the Netherlands and other countries in the eu. They will vote (extreme) right wing with the next election. And the right wing party here is not only opposed to immigrants,it is also opposed to Europe. The refuge crisis and all its implications will be the end of Europe,or cause an at least 10 year delay in further unification. I can simply not believe how this is being played. Sooner or later the population will revolt. Anti EU/Immigration parties will grow next elections because of the refugee crisis but I still believe that we as a people still care refugees fleeing war. Your views do not match with the majority | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
But we can not take care of all the refuges in the world,and we also care about other things. And if one thing we care for,starts conflicting with another thing we care for, then at one point a choise will be made about wich we care more. Anyway, am done on this forum. Gonna delete my account. Have been around long enough to know where this will end for Europe. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On January 08 2016 04:20 LegalLord wrote: If they do so intentionally then they are wrong and are putting themselves and possibly bystanders in danger. If you need non-lethal force, then you use a non-lethal weapon to get the job done. If you are already using lethal force, the primary goal is to neutralize the target, not to protect his/her life. For that, you shoot in the chest because that is the biggest and safest target. In addition, ANY bullet wound has a high probability of being fatal, and shooting at a target you have a reasonable chance of missing means that you may fire a stray round that will hit bystanders. There have been cases of stray bullets going through a house and killing people inside. Either way, it's pretty irresponsible to shoot in the leg with a lethal weapon. These exact arguments are presented ad nauseam by Americans and I think the reason is because they learn it that way when they are taught gun safety and never think about it again. These points are a pretty big pet peeve of mine (which is why I enter into this discussion despite better judgement) mainly because of how sloppy the argumentation is. To make the point somewhat rigorous let's first agree on a framework that is hopefully not contentious: I propose a general utiliaristic one. Gun training for the police is mainly better if (given equal incidents) in order of importance 1. fewer people die 2. fewer people get injured (and less gravely injured) 3. less property is damaged Feel free to add other requirements but that should be the main ones. Of course there are the normal trappings of a utilitaristic framework (how many grave injuries are worth a death, is the life of an officer more important than that of a citizen who might be a criminal and so on) and all of these can be weighted and discussed. We keep this in mind as we take a look at your arguments and the underlying assumptions: If you need non-lethal force, then you use a non-lethal weapon to get the job done. By omitting a very important should, you imply that the correct level of violence is always used. If you are already using lethal force, the primary goal is to neutralize the target, not to protect his/her life. For that, you shoot in the chest because that is the biggest and safest target. The primary goal may be to neutralize the target but using our utilitaristic framework, we see that a secondary goal is to keep it alive. Now, whether a specific approach is good depends entirely on the actual outcomes. If the police generally is a good judge of the danger level and leg shots are generally unsuccessful at stopping the target (or a little more unsuccessful at stopping but equally deadly as a shot to the chest) then the American policy would be without question the best one. If, however, guns are used in many situations where they should not have been used (not legally speaking, just from the outcomes) and leg shots are much less deadly than shots to the chest and generally successful at stopping the target then another policy could have much better outcomes. The point of this little exercise is to show that you cannot argue this from first principles even if they sound very logical to you. You have to look at what actually happens to determine what good policy is. The same applies to warning shots, which are also loathed by American gun users (and American laws) but used in other countries. Yes, there could be ricochets but the question is what is the chance of a warning shot hurting someone as compared to its effectiveness at bringing a situation under control. By the way, if you look at statistics of Germany, you see that leg shots as practiced here are less deadly than shots to the chest (unsurprisingly) and do not tend to hit bystanders. Of course good policy may very well depend on the country. For example the prevalence of guns in society will play a role. [EDIT]: Another thing: A similar argument as yours is used to show that since you shoot to neutralize the target and it is difficult to judge whether someone is neutralized, you should fire many shots before reassessing the situation. On its face this might again sound logical but it is not hard to see that the implementation of this into practice could lead to many negative things like hurting bystanders (by the sheer amount of additional bullets around) or hightening the chance of killing people that were no danger disproportionately. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On January 08 2016 04:20 LegalLord wrote: If they do so intentionally then they are wrong and are putting themselves and possibly bystanders in danger. If you need non-lethal force, then you use a non-lethal weapon to get the job done. If you are already using lethal force, the primary goal is to neutralize the target, not to protect his/her life. For that, you shoot in the chest because that is the biggest and safest target. In addition, ANY bullet wound has a high probability of being fatal, and shooting at a target you have a reasonable chance of missing means that you may fire a stray round that will hit bystanders. There have been cases of stray bullets going through a house and killing people inside. Either way, it's pretty irresponsible to shoot in the leg with a lethal weapon. That's pretty much wrong, from top to bottom, for first world countries. And let me clarify: not just wrong for police. Even for military training, which i went through. And we don't use non-lethal weapons. German military camps are obviously guarded by soldiers with live ammo. You train how to react to intruders. Starting by shouting, to escalating the situation by pointing your gun at the target, to further escalating the situation by visibly and audibly finish loading your weapon, to then whatever is needed. You train to not shoot if the target runs, you run after them and (my trainers words, not mine - and i'm not paraphrasing, i'm citing) pick them off the fence by smashing your rifle into the back of their head and breaking their fingers. See how so far shooting wasn't even an option? It becomes an option if you get attacked. Then you stop the target by aiming for legs or hip. Further, at a range of less than 10m, which i assume was the case, you can not miss the leg. If you do, you're not fit for service. We were able to do that with assault rifles, which are harder to bring up fast. The primary goal is to make sure that justice can be served. Executing someone is, other than what people in russia or america think, not justice. On the note of "fire to kill, and in the chest and stuff to not kill bystanders", ask the dead 55 year old mother of five that was killed last week in the US when us cops dispensed some freedom and 'murrca onto someone who was armed with a bat. At close range. | ||
zatic
Zurich15365 Posts
I think it's fair to assume that a guy attacking a police station with a (fake) explosive belt will be shot dead in Paris these days. | ||
|
Furikawari
France2522 Posts
(article in french sorry) So, not really about EU, it's a bout a citizen initiative in Switzerland (standard stuff there, "votation"). The idea is to make it mandatory for the banks to have 100% of the money for any loan. Meaning that it removes the monetary creation power from private institutions. It's really a tehnical subject (and my econimical english is really too poor to explain this clearly) but if it was adopted that would be BIG. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10886 Posts
| ||
|
Narw
Poland884 Posts
Full article here http://www.dw.com/en/reports-asylum-seekers-among-cologne-attacks-suspects/a-18966406 | ||
|
Furikawari
France2522 Posts
On January 08 2016 18:15 Velr wrote: And it will get smashed at the urn. Probably, cause as I said it's too big  | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10886 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8750 Posts
On January 08 2016 19:19 Velr wrote: Big isn't the issue, that there isn't even a real discussion about it in Switzerland itself is well... some bird told me banks are pretty important to the economy in switzerland, and in addition in a very unique position to offer "tax optimizing" services... ;p | ||
|
Furikawari
France2522 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10886 Posts
On January 08 2016 19:37 Doublemint wrote: well... some bird told me banks are pretty important to the economy in switzerland, and in addition in a very unique position to offer "tax optimizing" services... ;p It has nothing to do with taxes and is actually a very interesting idea. As for your other Point: About as important as the german banks are to germany. But wait, somehow our public relation sector seems to work worse than germanies. And the tax optimizing services are, luckily, more or less a thing of the past (for foreigners), now you can focus on englands channel Islands and other states/territories that truely base their whole economy around this "Business". Oh wait... That won't happen. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8750 Posts
was my bad ;( //edit: yes the hypocrisy is ripe - I totally agree with you. btw. that's from june 2015, any updates you could give on that one? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-05/swiss-government-wants-banks-extra-care-to-avoid-untaxed-money | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10886 Posts
Banks are also still individually "paying" settlements to the US-Gov... Well, time will tell... But as long as you have to be an utter moron to go bankrupt with a banking license i wouldn't be worried for them . Its like running a Casion, but with less luck involved (if you don't get too greedy). | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
Ministers have said there is no evidence asylum seekers were involved in the violence. But the leaked police report, published in Bild newspaper and Spiegel, a news magazine, claims that one of those involved told officers: “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.” Another tore up his residence permit before the eyes of police, and told them: “You can’t do anything to me, I can get a new one tomorrow.” A local newspaper reported that fifteen asylum-seekers from Syria and Afghanistan were briefly held by police on New Year's Eve in connection with the sex attacks but were released. The Express newspaper quoted an unnamed police officer who said his squad had detained several people who had "only been in Germany for a few weeks". "Of these people, 14 were from Syria and one was from Afghanistan. That's the truth. Although it hurts," he said. ... Bild does not name the author of the police report, but identifies him as the commander of some 100 officers sent as reinforcements to the area outside Cologne’s main station on New Year’s Eve. “When we arrived, our vehicles were pelted with firecrackers,” the report said. “In the forecourt and on the cathedral steps were a thousand people, mostly males of an immigrant background who were indiscriminately throwing fireworks and bottles into the crowd.” Even the appearance of police did not stop the violence. “Around 10.45pm, the station forecourt filled with people of an immigrant background. Women literally had to run the gauntlet through the mass of drunk men, in a way you can’t describe,” the report said. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On January 08 2016 17:59 Furikawari wrote: www.latribune.fr (article in french sorry) So, not really about EU, it's a bout a citizen initiative in Switzerland (standard stuff there, "votation"). The idea is to make it mandatory for the banks to have 100% of the money for any loan. Meaning that it removes the monetary creation power from private institutions. It's really a tehnical subject (and my econimical english is really too poor to explain this clearly) but if it was adopted that would be BIG. It's kinda stupid too, you need inflation. How will you do that without the banks in this day and age ? | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
On January 08 2016 21:44 SoSexy wrote: Are people really surprised that amongst thousands of people there were criminals? I would have been surprised if there were no violence, but I guess the liberal left is too blind to admit it fucked up You're too overly dramatic. It's a small group of black and brown people who did the attacks. These people (many young and still mentally undeveloped) are in a new area and culture and are adjusting. Overall, they are peaceful (I don't know why I need to keep stating the obvious). In due time, these Arabs will be tax payers and contribute to the overall welfare of Germany and native Germans. | ||
| ||
