School shooting

I think that for any person learning English as a second language, there are some interesting and well written posts here. I wonder if any of the posters would be prepared to record them and put them into the library. This is great learning material. If I stumbled on a thread in some other language on a similarly controversial subject, I would certainly want to use it for learning.

Not that the Import bookmarklet makes it easy to import these for learning.

Alex, you cannot avoid people commenting on cultural norms or practices in other countries. It is just human nature. Whenever we travel, we have a chance to observe other people, how they do things. We have positive reactions and negative reactions, and we express ourselves on these subjects, and well we should. It is all harmless. Certainly here at this forum, all views are welcome, and in a way this interest in each others’ affairs connects us.

I should add that the quality of the debate here is not too bad, given what often happens on the Internet. Thanks for your contribution, and thanks to the others as well.

Steve,

the sudden onset of the obesity epidemic in the early 80ies suggests that something must have changed over the last 20 to 30 years and it is definitely not our genes or our willpower. As I said before it seems that the type of processed foods we eat and especially the sugar therein affects our body chemistry and the delicate interplay of hunger, and satiety signals, there is a lot of interesting material out there on the internet on that.

I work for a private company and many companies do a lot of good in the world but corporate decisions are ultimately driven by what is good for the company’s bottom line and not necessarily by what is good for the consumer or the environment. If Cargill, Mc Donalds and Pepsi increase their profits they are happy, they don’t care if we get fat or if kids get diabetes. The poster boy for this dilemma is of course the tobacco industry which makes huge profits by selling a product that is one of the most important preventable causes of death.

In general I feel that large corporations with their tendency to increase efficiency often have a detrimental effect on the product and the competitive landscape. In Germany we have a tradition for good bread but there are fewer and fewer family owned bakeries left and the everything is dominated by a few mega bakery chains and their products don’t taste at all because everything is driven by upscaling and improving efficiency and the quality often goes down the drain along with it.

Steve, I agree people here have every right to comment on American affairs, and I encourage them to do so I was merely urging caution. The same way if I talk to someone from Spain I am very careful about what I say to them regarding Catalonia and the debt crisis, since I dont want to make it seem that Mr. American thinks he knows better than someone who lives there, I think non-Americans should exercise the same care when discussing an issue that is very emotional for us in the US. To be honest, one of the reasons I like language and international travel so much is because I am exposed to other viewpoints and ideas about things, I most certainly don’t want to discourage that cooperation. Maybe it didn’t come across as clearly as I hoped, but I was merely offering some context and advice about why this issue, moreso than many others, can create a huge possibility of some uncomfortable, or even dangerous, situations for those who may not be aware of how much of a firestorm this issue sets off even between 2 Americans, let alone a “foreigner” (is there a word that sounds less derogatory, for some reason this word just sounds rude to me). Believe me, we in the US dont need to look any further than our neighbor to the north to see some ways we could do things better, I just dont necessarily think this specific issue is one non-Americans should opine on without some real examination of the facts and whether their home countries are contributing to the supposed problem. (for the record, I absolutely love Canada, my favorite vacation ever was to Quebec City, staying at a famous old hotel whose name escapes me at the moment, Chateau Frontenac perhaps, I can’t recall).

@odiernod

have you seen the link to the Harvard study posted by “Iaing” on the second page of this post? Their conclusion is more guns = more gun related crime. I heard a Harvard professor on Norwegian TV saying the same thing. What is your response to that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/18/canada-gun-laws-mass-shootings-semi-automatic_n_2325843.html

Just an article I came across about the gun control debate from a Canadian perspective. The issues debated aren’t really that different, I guess. Guns are more tightly controlled here than they are in the States, but there are still plenty of guns, and plenty of people who feel strongly about them.

For me, the gun control debate isn’t really about these massacres. It’s more about daily violence, and the very high level of gun deaths in the US. There are plenty of ways to commit a massacre - guns are just one. These terrible incidents don’t make me feel unsafe because, statistically speaking, I am extremely unlikely to be the victim of one. I’m probably more likely to be hit by a bus. Or by lightning.

@friedemann

Although I’ll let odiernod respond, I can offer a little anecdotal experience of mine regarding the “more guns = more gun related crime” theory.

I live in a state with perhaps the loosest gun laws in the U.S., directly bordering a state with some of the toughest. The city I live in is dangerous compared to the average for similarly sized cities, but the city directly across the border is literally one of the top 3 most dangerous cities in the country, and the biggest city in this state has one of the highest murder rates in the country as well. The difference between the two states is drastic. Take from this what you will, there are obviously other factors that may contribute to this divide, but it is interesting considering the state with the tougher gun laws has failed miserably to reduce gun violence.

friedemann, here we have far more variety in breads than before. We have more independent bakeries than ever, and many of them sell their bread in the major supermarkets as well. I see only an increase in the variety of foods offered, including the so-called organic foods. I think your corporation obsession is misguided.

In North America I think the car, and the tendency to go everywhere by car, contributes to obesity. There were not too many fat people in Tokyo since they were forever climbing stairs in the subways. The increase in the number of escalators is a bad trend.

When we go down to the US we are impressed with the size of the portions in restaurants, and the degree to which everything is drive-in, a trend which is catching hold here as well.

Ultimately we are responsible for our life style choices, and that includes the German who sits at his Stammtisch every day, drinks his beer, smokes, eats his sausages and dies prematurely.

Steve,

you accuse me of sweeping statements but call me obsessed even though I back up my balanced views (on the corporate world) with arguments and examples.

It is more than self control when it comes to food. When you are injected with substances that block your leptin response (which triggers satiety) you will get fat.

I don’t know why you bring up Germany all the time. I don’t see myself as representing a certain country when I discuss the US or any other country.

I only bring up Germany because you always bring up the US, just to show that many of these issues are common to many countries.

I am not aware of people being injected with leptin. People have always eaten sweets, and the more affluent they become the more sugar they ingest. I am sure this contributes to obesity. I don’t know the science of leptin, however.

I don’t consider your views on the corporate world to be balanced. Corporations will produce what the market demands, and so will the small bakery and chocolatier, and sausage maker in each town. So will all the other providers and producers of services and goods that enrich our lives. People still have to decide what they eat, and how much they exercise.

Alex,
“I dont know all about Connecticut’s laws) by allowing her son access to them, as his mental disability (or whatever you want to call aspergars) should have made her reasonably foresee this could have occurred”

Actually “assault weapons”, such as the rifle Lanza brought to school, are banned in Connecticut.

@dooo

Just as I said a few posts ago, even a somewhat intelligent American like myself can learn something from a Canadian :slight_smile:

“Actually “assault weapons”, such as the rifle Lanza brought to school, are banned in Connecticut.”

I don’t think state-wise bans are effective to reduce access to arms. I suspect nation wide bans would be much more effective. The Harvard research linked to above (second page, iaing) suggests that there is indeed a link between access to guns and gun related crimes.

@Friedemann

A nationwide ban on guns will never happen due to the way the US Constitution is structured, specifically because it requires a 2/3 approval by our legislative branch. As everyone knows, in the US we have trouble cooperating enough to even pass a budget, let alone ban guns. A nationwide ban on assault weapons wont be effective because its impossible to enforce as there are literally millions of “assault weapons” already in circulation, and even if they somehow could constitutionally take all these weapons other amendments regarding the taking of property would also make it constitutionally suspect. Not to mention the cost of forcibly removing said weapons would be prohibitive, and thats not even taking into account those citizens who wouldn’t give up their arms without a fight (an admittedly small percentage). The cats out of the bag so to speak. Plus, we already tried that from 1994-2004, well after the crime boom of the 1980’s crack epidemic had subsided, and it had little to no impact on violent crime. Saying access to guns increases gun related crimes is sort of obvious to a point, as if guns didn’t exist there would obviously be no gun violence, but guns DO exist and the per capita rate of ownership is likely shocking to Europeans, as we have enough guns to arm every man woman and child in the country.

Something that people not from the US may not realize is that these gun control debates never pop up in mainstream US media unless a bunch of little white kids get murdered by a seemingly normal white teenager, but the amount of kids killed in this shooting is less than the average weekend in Chicago. Those deaths are almost always young black or latino teenagers from poor families. It makes you wonder what the motives are, do these people want to prevent gun violence or merely want to keep it in minority neighborhoods, the old “not in my backyard” defense. This is of course a discussion for another day, but it is food for thought. A much better way to effectively reduce gun violence in the US would probably be focusing on the cultural and societal influences that cause these young men to pick up the guns in the first place, rather than try to ban them entirely. A good example: Rick Ross (a famous rapper) has a popular song out right now with a chorus that goes “Whats your body count? I’m in double digits”. This could be part of the problem…

Seeings as my first 5 posts on this forum are about guns, and in a short period no less, I think I’ll try to prevent myself from being seen as some crazy gun-toting Yankee and retire from this thread. Good discussion though.

Just a thought: It would not surprise me if there were a link between these sorts of rampages and the heavy usage of first person shoot’em up video games. Does anyone know of evidence of this? Are there any laws regulating these types of games?

@Friedemann

Yes, I did read liang’s link, and the response to it has already been addressed, not just by others, but also in my post. They only looked at statistics at a state wide level, which does not paint an accurate enough picture of how firearms are truly distributed compared to crime rate within the United States. For that you have to look at that the local level, cities, suburban areas, rural areas. The more rural you get, the more guns you have, the less crime you have, regardless of other factors such as poverty or wealth.

Did you or liang see the link I posted? What are your responses to that?

Is this a hoax? It seems there was someone apprehended in the woods on school property the time the police arrived.

ad AlexWilson401:
(…) If people from outside the US want to judge us for our “unhealthy” love for guns, I’d advise these people check if there are any major gun manufacturers in their countries that export to the US. I am specifically referring to Austrians, seeing as I own a pistol made by Glock, a huge Austrian company (an excellent firearm btw, and the knife I own made by Glock is one of the best camping tools I have ever owned). I’m not saying there is anything immoral about producing these guns, in fact Glock specifically is my favorite manufacturer of a variety of products I enjoy, I’m simply saying you may live in a country that economically benefits from our love affair with firearms. (…)

I know you wrote that you’d be retiring from this thread, but when I read the comment about Austrians you made in one of your posts, I kind of had a feeling you were referring to me (me being the only Austrian posting in this thread).

I know Glock pretty well and am aware of the fact that they sell their weapons to many countries, not only the US. A couple of years ago there was a big uproar because Glock weapons supposedly swamped the black markets in countries where they then were used for serious crimes.

What does astonish me though is that you kind of seem to try and blame me for what a specific company in my country does or at least you make it seem as if the mere fact that I’m an Austrian citizen means I should think twice before engaging in a discussion about gun control simply because Glock is an Austrian company. I find the rationale behind this line of argument rather disturbing to be honest. If you were to apply this to every human being and under all circumstances we all would have to remain silent for the rest of our lives. Just imagine if I suggested Italians shouldn’t talk about organized crime because they have the Mafia in their country or Austrians should not talk about nazis in other countries because we are still haunted by our past. What would there be left for Americans to talk about if I factored in all the questionable things done by some American citizens, corporations or politicians?

In German we have a specific word for what I read between your lines, it is called “Sippenhaftung”. It is a term that is still used but goes back to ancient laws. “Sippe” means something like tribe, and “Sippenhaftung” means that you blame somebody for something a member of his tribe has done. The way we use this term today, “Sippe” can refer to your family, company, nationality, ethnic group, etc.
What I am trying to say is that I am an individual with my own thoughts and convictions based on which I try to lead a life that causes as little harm as possible to others and as much joy as possible to myself :wink:
I certainly would not want to be blamed for what one of my family members does, let alone a company I am not related to in any way whatsoever.

ad dooo:
You and Friedemann somehow don’t seem to see eye to eye and I got caught up in your arguments. I do believe that your comparison with the skirts and your argument that we might as well just close down schools to protect children was cynical. In this respect I agree with Friedemann.

Since I don’t even know you personally but only have read some of your posts here, I admit having gone too far by referring to your “outburst” in one of your posts as a character trait of yours. I have read quite a few posts where you and Friedemann were not exactly nice to each other but I have to say that you struck me as the one with the more aggressive tone. This is obviously a subjective statement but that is the way I felt when I posted my response to your comment. Instead of trying to judge your character I should have stuck to the discussion at hand and the ensuing verbal conflict.

Since I’m neither a moderator of this or any other forum on this site and it is neither my intention nor my task to discipline others for what they write here, I apologize to you if you felt my comment was offending to you. I will, however, continue to speak my mind and call a spade a spade. And name calling is rude in my eyes.

ad Friedemann: (…)
Robert,

the thing with fast food and soft drinks is that there are indications that especially the sugar can have a very addictive effect on us. …Modern days processed food is just designed to get us hooked and given the scale and the rapid increase of obesity rates all over the world it seems just unlikely that we all have suddenly become mentally weak and gluttonous. (…)

My friend is a medical doctor and he used to work at a diabetes centre. He now is involved in research at an EBM (Evidence Based Medicine) centre here in Austria. I sometimes translate some of their studies and/or studies they have to evaluate. Most people probably would stop going to their local supermarket if they had read some of these studies. Personally, I’m convinced that industrially processed food is an enormous threat to our health and we will soon pay the price for this and other erroneous developments. Yes, it is true that we live longer now than most of the generations before us as Steven said, but this is mainly due to better hygiene and advanced medical treatment. This has nothing to do with the way we eat.

It is well known that even baby food contains certain ingredients that have a major influence on the development of our sense of taste. There is a reason why so many young people can’t live without those sugar bombs (soft drinks, snacks, etc.). I am convinced this is mainly due to the fact that we were made to like this kind of food. It is a biological reaction you cannot really escape and this is why certain regulations need to be in place. If we try to ban the sale of certain products we are already one step behind the industry. Certain foodstuff simply should not be produced. Admittingly, this is a highly complex matter and with all the lobbying going on it is also very difficult to get to the bottom of things.

Due to the fact that one of my family members was diagnosed with a very aggressive form of cancer this summer and I have already lost three members of my larger family to this deadly disease I have started to read up a bit on the scientific information available with regards to the causes of the staggering increase in deaths caused by cancer worldwide. Sugar seems to be one of the major reasons, together with the serious impacts of environmental pollution on our health. The number of toxic agents an average citizen is exposed to practically on a daily basis is unbelievable. In even the most remote places people are contaminated by toxic substances found in fish etc.

While I agree with Steve that it is up to the invididual to decide what he or she ought to eat, we must not forget that not everybody is in the same position as a middle-class white citizen in a Western country. There still is an incredible lack of knowledge out there and there are certain economic constraints as well that influence people’s choice of food (even though I believe that with the right information you will actually be able to eat less and healthier for less money; unhealthy food is not cheap).

I also agree with you concerning the huge amounts of meat we eat. This is a major problem on so many levels.

And yet I am optimistic that we can change these things and living in a small community I can see change in the way people eat, buy food and use certain products. Nobody knows how things will turn out eventually, but most of us realize that we can’t just sit back and continue to exploit this planet’s natural resources the way we have done for too long.

Besides, often less is more. I remember that as a child we would have meat only once a week and that was on Sundays. I’m 44 years old now, so the time I am talking about was not that long ago. We also only had cakes and cookies for special occasions. Firstly, my parents would never have been able to serve meat for six kids on a daily basis and secondly we thoroughly enjoyed so many other dishes which now are often completely unknown to the younger generation, or at least parts of them.

The bottom line seems to be that we need to be much more careful about what we eat and how we produce our food. People sometimes treat their cars with more care than their own bodies. While they would never get into their car with dirty shoes, they don’t seem to mind fillig their bodies with huge amounts of clearly unhealthy food. There are movements to stop this development. Some of our social security institutions now offer reduced tariffs for people who can prove with a medical certificate that they lead a healthier life style (reducing weight, improving blood sugar values, etc.). Just a few weeks ago all the parties in our National Parliament agreed on a new law which increased the number of PE classes at school from one hour per week (totally ridiculous) to one hour per day.

Certain fast food products have been banned from school canteens (yes, I know kids can buy those things outside of school but just as you can get young people to eat that stuff you can make sure they at least have an option to choose healthier food and so far the schools that have increased the amount of vegetables and fruits in their canteens have had great success with their new policy).

All in all, we probably need better informed citizens on the one hand and stricter production regulations on the other hand.

@ lovelanguages

I’ll repeat, my main point, which seems to have completely eluded you even though I have mentioned it explicitly at least twice , is that when these sorts of rampages happen there is no more reason for a call for gun control than for control of schools/skirts/free speech etc . Calling my obvious sarcasm ( I even added the short skirts comment to underline it) “cynical” is proof of your and others’ challenges in processing that rather useful rhetorical device.

“I have to say that you struck me as the one with the more aggressive tone”

Your arguments generally strike me long-winded and mealy-mouthed, if you think is making such unsupported subjective statement is forum worthy.

" I apologize to you if you felt my comment was offending to you"

This sort of mealy-mouthed apology offends me more than anything else you have written. Apologise if YOU think you did something wrong. If not, do not.

@ lovelanguages

I wasn’t trying to attack you personally, Glock was the best example I could personally use, as it is the only firearm I personally own that was imported, and to be honest is the biggest brand name of imported firearms in the states, thats all (and, as you sort of alluded to, it is a very popular weapon on the black market here because its nearly impossible to break and it never jams). There was no personal intention behind that example. The point of my using it was merely to say the issue is complex and requires looking at a lot of different factors before pushing for “more gun control” in the states. Its like when people push for the closing of many overseas US military bases (as I personally support doing), they need to understand how far the effects of that decision would go. Similarly, reducing gun ownership in the US would impact other countries in other ways, as well as US society itself. You are in no way responsible for what your country does, as I don’t feel responsible for the travesty in Iraq, for example. Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, and I encourage you to express it as you wish.