@PrinceAlexus There's mass shootings in Australia nearly every year, but this one was particularly big for the country if I'm remembering correctly.

Not the only place with bad news in terms of guns. (or more so the people misusing them.) Specifically the U.K.

mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/number-guns…

could be worse.

@mdk most weapons in the EU come from the Balkans - which historically makes a lot of sense. It's something we also can't reasonably avoid anymore with the advent of Schengen. I love the European Union and every bullshit treaty they've come up with! Pay for the remarkably useless privilege of crossing border without having to show your passport with more guns in your country!!!!

Though I think even without all these things we have now these weapons'd still end up everywhere. It's the nature of crime I suppose.

The problem with guns isnt a lack of legislation against them. The problem is that people think legislating against them is enough.

It seems to me that neither Democrat or Republican in the US and neither Labour or Conservative in the UK are tackling the causes or crime, only the after effects. When someone's already involved in organised crime, its too late.

Take, for instance, the town of Addiewell in the UK. Disasterous amounts of child abuse, neglect, drug and alcohol abuse, assault... All kinds of horrible things. But the town also has an 80% unemployment rate. There are no jobs available, and no business seems to want to touch the place. Then the parents inflict that on their kids and the cycle begins anew when the kids have kids.

I honestly believe if we're going to tackle gun violence and organised crime, we need to tackle poverty at the same time

english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2…

bbc.com/news/world-asia-44133308?ns_s…

abcnews.go.com/International/wireStor…

axios.com/north-korea-threatens-to-ca…

I can't say that I'm surprised, but I am amused.

Who would have thunk that when you shit on nuclear deals, other countries that you want deals with might tell you to fuck off? This administration acts without consideration or regard for the consequences their actions might have on a greater scale. That goes without saying, since we have a fuckin' circus act running the country -- I just want to highlight how incompetent these people are. Our word doesn't mean shit, and having people like Bolton in the administration does not help our credibility or trustworthiness.

twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/99658611…

Remember all the Trump supporters who said NK's change of attitude was due to how tough Trump was being? Turns out NK didn't appreciate his chest-pounding, after all. Who woulda fuckin' thunk.

Man, I really want peace to happen. But I would be lying if I said it didn't amuse me to see Donny's supporters be wrong about basically everything they said.

@Pepperm1nts hasn't Iran transgressed on their nuclear deal and not done what they said they'd do like, numerous times?

Not according to foreign and US groups who were monitoring the sites. As I recall, Israel and Trump's administration were the only ones claiming that Iran broke the deal. The White House itself certified twice that Iran was in compliance. The issue, I think, is the US wants to extend inspections into military sites, which Iran doesn't want. They've already surrendered much of their sovereignty to the inspections, so I understand them not wanting to surrender all of it. Over the months, everyone from Mattis and US intelligence, to the UN monitor (IAEA) said Iran was in compliance.

@Pepperm1nts I see.

Back in June, Politifact did a breakdown that I thought was pretty fair. It highlights some small infractions by Iran, but shows that for the most part Iran has been compliant. Bear in mind this article is old.

politifact.com/georgia/statements/201…

"While the IAEA has certified Iran’s compliance in its quarterly reports, Iran’s record is not without blemishes. The Handel campaign zeroed in on those.

Handel’s campaign aide pointed us to news reports and congressional testimony that highlighted instances where Iran committed two small infractions of a highly technical nature.

The deal says Iran can keep 130 metric tons of "heavy water," a modified liquid used in some nuclear reactors. However, Iran has twice crept over its limit, according to the IAEA, each time by a fraction of one ton.

These breaches formed the core basis of Handel’s claim that Iran violated the nuclear deal. Some experts we spoke to said Iran has tried to create wiggle room by interpreting portions of the agreement to favor their own interests. But the clear consensus is that it overstates the case to say Iran has violated the deal."

"Daryl Kimball, the executive director Arms Control Association, downplayed the heavy water issue as a "minor infraction," and noted that Iran currently does not have a functioning heavy water reactor. In other words, from a practical standpoint, the issue is essentially moot because excessive heavy water wouldn’t move Iran closer to building a nuclear weapon."

"Several experts also noted Iran quickly rectified its breach to come back into compliance."

In short, the infractions Iran has committed are so small and technical, that it would be a reach to say they violated the deal.

Back in June, Politifact did a breakdown that I thought was pretty fair. It highlights some small infractions by Iran, but shows that for the most part Iran has been compliant. Bear in mind this article is old.

politifact.com/georgia/statements/201…

<Snipped quote>

<Snipped quote>

<Snipped quote>

In short, the infractions Iran has committed are so small and technical, that it would be a reach to say they violated the deal.

Um.... You may be out of date.

But it doesn't really make a difference -- they could've followed the agreement to the T and had nukes by.... what was it 2025? I don't remember what the deal said exactly. It was a shit deal.

@mdk

From Israel. Because, you know, they're trustworthy on this issue. /s

Furthermore, the information Israel presented is old. Like, really old. From 2003 to 2004 when Iran was building a spherical weapon of some sort. Development of the weapon ended in 2004 and there is no evidence that they have continued development.

It might be a hint to how useless and outdated the information is, that none of what Israel presented is relevant passed 2004.

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/…

The accurate part is that Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu presented a trove of Iranian documents.

What’s less accurate is that those documents added much to what the international community had known for some time.

In 2008, notes of a Vienna briefing on Iran by the chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency leaked out. In a summary posted online, the briefing provided diagrams and documents on the development of a "spherical device," high-explosives testing and missile launch sequences, including an explosion at 600 meters. The notes said that "elements available to the Agency are not consistent with any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon."

However, the briefing notes said the activities continued only into January 2004.

Netanyahu’s presentation, based on documents taken from a warehouse in Tehran by Israeli spies, also exhibited a spherical device and work done on high power explosives. He did not describe activities after 2003. So, much of what Netanyahu offered was already known.

You can't knock an article from a few months ago by presenting evidence of a project from 2003. C'mon, bruh. Even the article you posted mentions that the documents are useless and outdated.

---

I think it was a good deal, but regardless of what you think, a deal is a deal. When you break deals you hurt our credibility and our standing. It is not the least bit surprising that North Korea is having second thoughts. Not to mention we had a deal before. Now we have nothing.

@Brithwyr Well the tricky thing about poverty. Is that the poor will never go away, even if extreme poverty is getting lowered every single year around the world because of the free market system. Now the violence problems aren't all the same in every place. And I only know about where I live. But the problem, isn't guns. Nor poverty. It's gang violence.

But it's actually not the case for other crime statistically either. (To paraphrase from articles.) "During the Great Depression, levels of crime actually dropped. During the 1920s, when life was free and easy, so was crime. During the 1930s, when the entire American economy fell, crime was nearly non-existent. During 1960s, unemployment is under four percent (4%), there’s no inflation, the economy is fizzing and violent crime soars.

In the 60's in Britain, where they had an extreme social safety net, crime rates other than murder are significantly higher than in the United States. Actually, the highest rate of car theft in the world is, Switzerland. Next comes New Zealand. Then Britain, Sweden, Australia, Denmark, Scotland, Italy, Canada and Norway. The U.S. isn't even in the top ten. (Also, 2007–2008 the Great Recession. And what happens? Crime continues to fall. So there is no consistent relationship between general economic conditions and violent crime.)"

So it feels a little cheap, and a little unfair to assume standards of low expectations that 'those poor people' "must" be committing all these violent crimes because poor. I was fairly poor at a time. I never shot up a school or joined a gang. Of course, I'm not saying that you presuming such. I don't want to speak non-generally. But even generally speaking, poverty is not biggest contributing cause of crime. Might be a symptom of it, but most deadly school shooters (for a small instance) come from fatherless homes. That's just another piece of the puzzle.

@Pepperm1nts Jesus those articles are tiny...also some contradict the others. Is it 'threatening to?' Or actually 'cancelling it?'

Because it also seems they've still agreed for peaceful negotiations, but they're trying to push for more parties to be involved. But they had no sources or videos...proving any of this.

I also don't see why people are so happy to see it fail. Oh, because Trump. Carry on. (And yes, Iran did break their deal many times.)

But since conversations end well. And I have to be afk in 10 minutes. I'll leave it brief.

The news are very recent, that's why. And those articles were from when the news first broke. The last one doesn't contradict the others. It's just the oldest one, from before they officially cancelled it. I posted it just to be thorough.

And for the record, I am not happy to see it fail. I am amused that it failed just like everyone that isn't a Trump supporter expected, because for the past several weeks I've been told Trump would bring world peace and I'm a librul cuck for not accepting it.

@mdk

From Israel. Because, you know, they're trustworthy on this issue. /s

Yeah who can trust them, they're just the ones Iran has been bombing and promising to destroy. You can't take their word that Iran is violent.

Furthermore, the information Israel presented is old. Like, really old. From 2003 to 2004 when Iran was building a spherical weapon of some sort. Development of the weapon ended in 2004 and there is no evidence that they have continued development.

Well, I.... didn't go into it. But the very act of preserving that research is a violation of the agreement, so.... nyeh?

You can't knock an article from a few months ago by presenting evidence of a project from 2003. C'mon, bruh. Even the article you posted mentions that the documents are useless and outdated.

I just grabbed the first link. Netanyahu's point is, Iran never came clean about their program before the deal.

I think it was a good deal, but regardless of what you think, a deal is a deal. When you break deals you hurt our credibility and our standing. It is not the least bit surprising that North Korea is having second thoughts. Not to mention we had a deal before. Now we have nothing.

This is the deal. It requires very little from Iran, and relinquishes all safeguards within eight years. The EU+3 is granted authority to 'discuss solutions' to violations, and also forbidden from responding to them (Iran is expressly allowed to 'cease performing its commitments in part or in whole'). Nobody thought it was going to work, btw. Note that we never ratified this shit -- it was never voted up through Congress and wouldn't have passed -- and also we're totally allowed to unilaterally leave, it's part of the deal. So like.... if this deal demands so little and requires permanent bypass of democratic processes in the US to stay valid.... what was the goddamn point of it?

The news are very recent, that's why. And those articles were from when the news first broke. The last one doesn't contradict the others. It's just the oldest one, from before they officially cancelled it. I posted it just to be thorough.

And for the record, I am not happy to see it fail. I am amused that it failed just like everyone that isn't a Trump supporter expected, because for the past several weeks I've been told Trump would bring world peace and I'm a librul cuck for not accepting it.

I feel sorry for Ki Moon Jae-In though. Trump is basically ruining what he was trying to achieve.

The problem with guns isnt a lack of legislation against them. The problem is that people think legislating against them is enough.

It seems to me that neither Democrat or Republican in the US and neither Labour or Conservative in the UK are tackling the causes or crime, only the after effects. When someone's already involved in organised crime, its too late.

Take, for instance, the town of Addiewell in the UK. Disasterous amounts of child abuse, neglect, drug and alcohol abuse, assault... All kinds of horrible things. But the town also has an 80% unemployment rate. There are no jobs available, and no business seems to want to touch the place. Then the parents inflict that on their kids and the cycle begins anew when the kids have kids.

I honestly believe if we're going to tackle gun violence and organised crime, we need to tackle poverty at the same time

Alas. There's your problem. Due to crime rates etc people not want to invest, lower texes means services and schools degrade thus making it worse. And things carry on down and down.

As things spiral down its harder and harder to turn things around.

And when it's that low its vert expensive to reverse and that's money people do not want to spend.

<Snipped quote by Brithwyr>

Alas. There's your problem. Due to crime rates etc people not want to invest, lower texes means services and schools degrade thus making it worse. And things carry on down and down.

As things spiral down its harder and harder to turn things around.

And when it's that low its vert expensive to reverse and that's money people do not want to spend.

ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

this only tells half the story. there's so many complex variables involved in any situation with neighborhoods that there are infinite ways to fix these problems (and all of them are valid ideas). poverty is just one variable, just like crime rates are a variable, quality of services is a variable and they are all interconnected.

throwing money at the problem is a solution that has been tried and tested (and is rigged to fail the moment it is considered). we don't need MORE money. or atleast, having MORE money won't fix the problem. just like having a 99% employment rate still doesn't mean jackshit for the neighborhood on it's own.

I just saw someone claim that if you tell someone they should speak english in the United States, you are a racist because there is no official language in the U.S.
"Racist" claim aside, shouldn't someone learn english in the U.S. based upon percentages of english speakers?