And yet after all the (dubiously, as it is turning out) negative publicity, COPCOV is still proceeding with the study on this drug
So what? No one denies it.
However, you're advancing a considerably more credulous viewpoint than that of the two COPCOV researchers quoted by the BBC. You stated outright that evidence has shown that hydroxychloroquine "taken together with vitamin C, D and zinc as a preventive measure or during the early stages has been very effective in preventing symptoms developing to the serious stage". This takes what very little evidence is available, and most of it from problematic sources, at face value. The COPCOV study does the exact opposite, and proposes a far closer look with a vastly larger number of participating subjects, to assess both safety (not yet established) and efficacy (also not yet established):
"COPCOV is a very large study, enrolling 40,000 participants, and will give a definite answer whether the drugs are effective and safe."
I'm genuinely curious - are you claiming that it's useless.
The COPCOV trial? No. In fact that's why I quoted their own words, to make clear what they are and what they are not attempting to establish, and how they are intending to do it. Their aims and pronouncements are not remotely similar to those of Raoult or Armstrong.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Evidence on the ground from doctors has also shown that hydroxychloroquine taken together with vitamin C, D and zinc as a preventive measure or during the early stages has been very effective in preventing symptoms developing to the serious stage.
The BBC report provides nothing - nor does it intend to - in the way of evidence. It is simply reporting that a suspended trial is restarting; specifically, the UK part of the study is restarting in the UK. The quotes (bold mine), "could be protective if given as pre-exposure prophylaxis", and "Hydroxychloroquine could still prevent infections" are both from investigators on the trial, and indicate no conclusion. And it is clear that they are only speaking of prevention, not treatment during early stages, and will have no data to offer and no conclusion to suggest about what it may or may not do in the early stages of the disease. Let alone anything about vitamin C, D, and zinc.
This is how the study is presented on the COPCOV website:
"The drugs [chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine] have been in the news a lot because they have been tested in small trials for the treatment of COVID-19. Some of these studies claimed success, others failure, but all these studies were too small to give a definite answer about their efficacy or safety. Larger trials are ongoing to determine whether these drugs are effective for the treatment of COVID-19. COPCOV is a very large study, enrolling 40,000 participants, and will give a definite answer whether the drugs are effective and safe. COPCOV studies chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19, which is different from the treatment of patients that already have the disease COVID-19, who carry a much higher load of the virus."
It is abundantly clear that they have reached no conclusion about these drugs yet, and aren't even close.
It's also well worth mentioning that three other trials that people (excitable right wingers, libertarians, conspiracy theorists, antivaxers) have been pointing to are the French one, which was a very poor-quality study presided over by Didier Raoult, a highly controversial but not highly trusted figure, and with good reason; some half-arsed largely anecdotal stuff coming out of China; and a minuscule Texas nursing home trial headed by Robin Armstrong, a politically motivated physician who is active in an organization called Black Voices for Trump. His claimed results have been astonishingly successful, but you'd kind of expect them to be. Some of his subjects had middle-stage dementia, by the way, so their consent as participants has been questioned. Basically, the whole trial was a farce and riddled with ethical issues.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
where do you think the electricity comes from
It comes from the electromagnetic force, and there are numerous ways to use that to produce electricity. Fossil fuels are only one of them. Others in common and highly productive use today barely existed in the first half of the 20th century. Britain today regularly goes without power generated by coal at all. The driving force for that change has been wind power.
Even when electricity is generated from fossil fuels, there are some important efficiency advantages of electric motors over combustion engines. An idling engine consumes and wastes fuel. And combustion engines also generate pollution wherever they go. It is not demonstrably better to have intense pollution in most cities and in densely populated areas near busy roads than to have theoretically manageable pollution produced by a plant burning coal, gas, or other fossil fuel.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Instead of focusing on serving the American people the Democrats are still focused on bring down Trump
They brought him down.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
There have been loads of complaints and court cases about dangerous vaccines that were released onto the market even though they have show to be unsafe in practice. The HPV vaccine Gardasil is one such recent example, and there are still court cases going on about that one. Often, the drug companies will settle out of court and pay a fine instead of risking negative publicity through lengthy court battles. Don't say it doesn't happen.
Sounds like you've mangled some half-remembered information that you never actually understood in the first place.
"Loads of complaints" is meaningless. Antivaccine groups complain about literally everything to do with vaccines literally all the time. Antivaxers are even vocal in JT threads. Their sources, when they trouble to give them at all, are invariably rubbish, and so are their complaints.
Often, the drug companies will settle out of court and pay a fine instead of risking negative publicity through lengthy court battles. Don't say it doesn't happen.
In the United States, vaccine manufacturers (and crucially, claimants) are protected from lengthy court battles by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. They needn't settle out of court, either, because compensation is paid out of a fund, which is financed by a tax on all vaccines. The court itself is the US Court of Federal Claims. There is no jury, and cases are heard on a no-fault basis. In other words, the claim itself is examined, and a decision is reached on whether to award compensation, but that's as far as it goes. Compensation does not indicate, and the court does not determine, either scientifically or legally, that the vaccine in question has injured the claimant. The system is imperfect, but serves a purpose, which is to keep manufacturers producing vaccines instead of dumping them altogether, and to quickly handle cases (along with any payment of compensation). It also prevents those large manufacturers using their money, resources, and disproportionate power to put pressure on an individual family and its legal team - which is precisely what can happen in the mainstream US legal system.
The cases (complaint and ruling) are required to be made public, minus details removed for privacy purposes, and can be accessed online. Try it.
So there's no actual way to prevent publicity, and settlement is not out of court.
Questioning is perfectly fine.
Frequently it isn't. The question has to be asked in good faith. "Just asking questions" is the classic defence of the conspiracy theorist, but also the classic demonstration of why not all questioning methods are perfectly fine, and why conspiracy theorists are irritating douchebags.
They use questions as a disruptive tactic; as a means of innuendo; they ask questions they don't want an answer to; they ask questions they're incapable of understanding the answer to; or they simply ask questions that are stupid beyond belief. There are many environments and situations where this is entirely unsuitable, and taking the time to provide answers is impractical.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The two paid tribute to the "sacrifice, bravery, and legacy of those who laid down their lives in defense of a free, democratic, and prosperous" South.
Of course, not everyone "laid down" their life for the South, for the North, for freedom, or for peace. They were simply murdered en masse. By the United States. City by city, and village by village. One of the most gruesome and disgusting campaigns in modern history.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
Naomi is apparently unaware that BLM is a Marxist organization that is involved in money laundering and has done a lot of damage to the U.S., which I notice she has spent most of her life and currently resides in despite making the huge mistake of renouncing her citizenship in order to represent Japan in the Olympics.
Presumably, you mean her American citizenship, as she grew up with dual nationality, and so both nationalities are her citizenship(s).
How did she renounce by the way? Do you have any facts to hand? Any evidence to show?
At her age, she would quite recently have reached the time by which she was legally required by Japan to "choose" her nationality. This is done in one of two ways, and they're mutually exclusive. One is submitting a form (国籍離脱届; kokuseki ridatsu todoke) in which she announces her intention to give up her Japanese nationality (it amounts to an application, and must be accompanied by the documents necessary for her nationality to be cancelled - and in order to prevent statelessness, proof of a non-Japanese nationality).
The other way is submitting a form declaring that she "chooses" Japanese nationality (国籍選択届; kokuseki sentaku todoke). This is flim flam, because as a Japanese national, the form itself doesn't affect your nationality status one way or the other. It contains some waffle about "abandoning" (放棄) foreign nationalities; but rather obviously, the Japanese Ministry of Justice has no jurisdiction over any nationality other than Japanese. No state can remove or invalidate the nationality of another state. A person who files this declaration to remain Japanese (which they would have remained anyway without filing) is still a dual national after submitting the form and having it approved. The only thing that changes dual national status is if the dual national voluntarily takes steps to give up their non-Japan nationality at some point, entirely of their own choosing, in the future. Japan cannot compel them to do it.
If Osaka has given up her American nationality already, it will be published in the Federal Register, or published in the next quarterly release of it. If she hasn't but gives it up in the future, it will be published in a future Federal Register. If such things interest you, you can scan it for her name. Happy hunting. Everyone gets put in, as the notoriously cagey "Johnson Alexander Boris" (Feb 2017), normally someone who finds ways to get around the rules, has demonstrated.
Here's the most recent list. You won't find Naomi Osaka in that or the previous three lists - despite the news stories published last autumn about her "giving up" her US citizenship. Whether she ultimately does so or not is going to be almost entirely a personal choice.*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/10/10/tennis-star-naomi-osaka-gives-up-her-us-citizenship-play-japan-tokyo-olympics/There's nothing new in competitive sports about adopted nationality, or about dual nationality (which is certainly not new in tennis), or about people representing one country and then another. It goes back to the 19th century.
Likewise, tennis is full of dual nationals, and there are many players who have represented more than one country. Nor is this a new idea in the Olympics; it's just more common today than it ever was before.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
That's the cumulated total, not the currently active cases. The cumulated total for influenza ranges in the hundreds of millions, if not billions.
For the first few months of the epidemic, you posted comment after comment confidently predicting that COVID-19 would go away in the spring/summer/sunshine/heat/whatever. Evidently you formed this belief because you imagined that this specific coronavirus disease - which like all coronavirus diseases, is not caused by influenza viruses - would closely match the behaviour of seasonal flu - which is. You made this illogical and uninformed guess while carefully ignoring the fact that other coronavirus diseases (such as SARS and MERS), none of which are caused by influenza viruses, did not go away as a result of heat, sunshine, or summer.
It has subsequently been demonstrated in countries around the world, in the northern and southern hemisphere, and in the subtropical and equatorial belt, that COVID-19 continues to spread and continues to kill, in humid heat, in dry heat, in sunshine, in spring, in summer.
Let's summarize: you've been desperately trying to wave away this problem since it emerged, finding - without evidence or logic - any way you can to lowball the figures. This prattle about the "cumulated" total is just more of the same.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
story next 2 weeks: "The large rally attendance caused coronavirus cases to increase 10x as many!"
The number of people in close proximity, gathering while the epidemic is at its height, will inevitably set off new infections. Seriously man, almost none of these idiots are wearing face masks.
Some of them are going to have caught it at this rally, and they're going to spread it. And some of them are going to die because they caught it. Others are going to die because they caught it from these idiots. Unfortunately, some of those others may be health workers.
12 ( +15 / -3 )
As for the lecturers and other staff, I have no doubt some were leftwing and in some cases, possibly very leftwing. They were offset by what seemed to be about an equal number of smarmy, privileged Tories.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Unfortunately universities in the West have been heavily dominated by extreme left wing factions in recent times.
The west is a big place. I doubt that you have much knowledge of universities outside your own country, and probably not that much within it.
At my own university, there wasn't much evidence of extreme leftwing factions being dominant. If we drop the word extreme, and just stick with leftwing, there wasn't much evidence of that either. The students were a mix, although those from working class backgrounds were none too over-represented, and for the first time in my life, I was encountering a high proportion of people my own age who had been educated at public schools and grammar schools.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
If Germany wasn’t fighting on 3 fronts, & could’ve concentrated it’s entire military might on the eastern front, Russia would’ve been badly defeated
That's a lot of "if". It was Germany's decision to rebuild itself as a belligerent power after a brief period of peace and enforced demilitarisation following the Great War, and to drag Europe into an even worse conflict. It was a disastrous course from the start, so it shouldn't be surprising that their actions were riddled with errors, and that one of the key factors in their eventual destruction was their own hubris. Nazism was pure poison.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
The truth is it has no direct correlation; that if you smoke like 2 packs of cigarette a day you will have cancer is not true.
Are you sure you know what correlation means? The comment suggests that you don't, yet it's vital for even the most basic understanding of scientific method. Furthermore, without that basic understanding, it is impossible to understand science itself.
The correlation between smoking and cancer was observed in the 19th century. It was shown with considerably more detail in the 20th century, helped additionally by an increased number of smokers as well as an increased percentage of smokers in the global population.
Study of the correlation was the basis of the more complex task of actually establishing that smoking was a primary cause of lung cancer. It is the closest, most direct link between a lifestyle habit and a specific cancer that there is, and the science has demonstrated that the one leads to the other. That was established by the 1950s; it has simply been reinforced and added to since then. There hasn't been legitimate room for doubt for well over half a century.
What the science never said and doesn't say is "if you smoke like 2 packs of cigarettes a day you will have cancer".
"Will" would be 100% risk. The actual risk is much lower, but lifelong smoking in adults carries a high risk of lung cancer, and a less high but still often considerable risk of multiple other cancers, along with a high risk of heart attack and an increased risk of stroke.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
"Legendary"?? Who made this decision?
Audiences, critics, other musicians over the last 55 years. It's a great achievement to have a career of that length, to still be filling venues, and to still be creating.
What Dylan achieved above and beyond that is changing the course of popular music, primarily aimed (in the early years at least) at young audiences, and massively boosting the importance of the performer-songwriter within it. And like the Beatles, greatly expanding the form and the subject matter.
No one's asking you to like Dylan - certainly not me. It's valid to loathe him, or just to be indifferent to him, as I am, at least in terms of the amount of time I spend listening to them, to Bing Crosby or Frank Sinatra. But as with them, it's impossible to belittle the achievement, and the place in the history of popular music.
Dylan's is unassailable. A filmmaker of Scorsese's stature thought enough of Dylan to make two long documentaries about him. His music has been used in countless films, from bad to good to great. The long - absurdly long - list of people who have recorded Dylan covers, and the number of songs covered, is even more impressive. It's artistic endorsement. Who else has managed that, and what more would he possibly need to prove?
2 ( +3 / -1 )
My bad. I should amend that to: "He entered into a relationship with (and later married) a high school girl who was his long-time girlfriend's adoptive daughter." I didn't check it properly.
What you're acknowledging now is so far off what you originally said, and what you originally said was so incorrect, that you couldn't have checked it all.
Not sure where you get the high school thing from, either, but regarding Soon-Yi Previn's age, she was assigned a birth date (8 Oct 1970) shortly before being taken out of South Korea, and that was henceforth both her legal age and the age that her adopted parents, Farrow and Andre Previn, had officially agreed to. Once Farrow was committed to smearing Soon-Yi Previn, she started questioning her age, as well as her mental competence. That aside, when the affair was discovered, Soon-Yi was already, by her official birth date, over 21 years old. It has been suggested (in a judicial investigation) that it started in December 1991; again, she was already 21 by that point. Even if it had started two years earlier, something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, she'd have been 19.
Previn was not Allen's stepdaughter, he didn't bring her up, and she already had two adoptive parents. While the relationship, now a long-term and apparently happy marriage, has put a lot of people in a lather, focusing exclusively on the oddity of the age difference or Allen's supposed family ties to her is pointless without considering the oddity of the entire domestic setup, which is largely down to Farrow's way of ordering her universe. She acquired kids the way crazy ladies acquire stray cats. Soon-Yi Previn has spoken about her time as Farrow's daughter, as she's fully entitled to do, and doesn't have much in the way of flattering anecdotes to share. Accusations can fly both ways, it seems. If Farrow's about Allen are true he's a child abuser; if Soon-Yi's about Farrow are true, she was negligent, and physically and mentally abusive to her children, including her disabled children. Ouch.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The police are government
Well okay. But they will handle a case of theft like regular police, not like government. The main variation being who handles it, as there may be specialized investigators or departments for certain types of crime. They also won't generally go beyond the fairly narrow confines of the individual crime itself. And investigating a theft - that is the word you applied - doesn't always result in uncovering what happened, who is responsible, or ensuring that people who have been stolen from are fully compensated. It doesn't even always show that theft occurred at all.
Mt Gox has been investigated because it was based here, went bankrupt here, and the operator was here. He may or may not have stolen from his investors. He certainly seems extremely fishy, but that's not unusual in highly speculative investment schemes. If investigators can't prove he did steal, and it seems they can't, it may end there. They could investigate the hacking, but that also happens to be a convenient cover story supplied by Karpelès which shifts the focus from him to anybody, anywhere. It could have happened, but police in Japan aren't going to throw infinite resources at that, and they don't have extensive powers outside Japan. So far, outside hacking is unproven.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Seriously? You believe the government has no obligation to investigate theft?
Theft is more a matter for the police than the government, and they need to be reasonably confident that it occurred within their own jurisdiction, and also that it occurred at all. That can be close to impossible with an item that its own users/advocates make a point of defining and redefining according to their own convenience.
And the more effort people take to cover their tracks or conceal their hoard or convert it into forms that aren't supported, the less likely it becomes that any authority in any country is going to take the trouble to rescue them. It is not the responsibility of governments to prop up cryptocurrencies or the people who buy them. Speculation is risk, and certain kinds of speculation are particularly risky.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
He has gotten away with it by enlisting top professionals to flesh out and then polish his rough, mediocre efforts.
That must be why his first four albums were solo acoustic and he performed hundreds of concerts as a solo artist (give or take some vocal accompaniment, hardly unusual in the folk scene at the time) before going electric, by which time he was already at the top of the tree, comfortably holding his own against the Beatles, Stones, and everyone that came along with them. You've busted him.
Even the first electric album, which didn't come until 1965, has one of his best-regarded solo acoustic songs: Mr Tambourine Man, which is 5+ minutes in length. Followed by Chimes of Freedom, another 5+ minutes, It's Alright Ma I'm Only Bleeding (nearly 8 minutes), and It's All Over Now, Baby Blue. All solo, all acoustic, all recorded on the same day. That doesn't sound at all like someone who was trying to hide behind other musicians: he's been neither self conscious nor evasive about the rawness of his sound. (And if you could spend some time exploring the 1920s, when the recording industry was really starting to get going, you'll find how raw American music could be. Apparently people understood and appreciated that, decades before Dylan trudged up to a microphone.)
If he was so reliant on the "real professionals" - not that that's normally considered a bad thing - then launching a career by writing and lead-singing his own songs, releasing prolifically, and carrying the lot with self-played guitar and harmonica for years is a damned odd way to do it.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Can you point me towards ‘good poems’ so I know what standard I’m supposed to be using?
Why not decide for yourself. Pick a poet you've heard of. Read some. See what you think makes it effective. Then see if Dylan lyrics, without musical support, hold up as well. They won't. But they don't need to.
There isn't a shortage of 20th century poets to look at, some preceding and some contemporary with Dylan. You can go earlier if you like, but poetry itself evolved from one century to the next.
I'm not actually holding Dylan to a standard, as I'm not classing him as a poet at all. If you were to read, say 2 poems by any of the following from the last 150 years, and it's not intended in any way as a comprehensive, adventurous, or adequately representative list, you'll easily see a difference between the arrangement and presentation of words and ideas for song and the presentation of words and ideas for poetry: Robert Browning, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Siegfried Sassoon, Sylvia Plath, WH Auden, Philip Larkin, Robert Frost, Seamus Heaney. Or Spike Milligan, come to that.
For maximum efficiency, and by no coincidence at all, just go for Dylan Thomas, and consider whether many of those poems would work well as songs (they wouldn't, and certainly don't need to).
1 ( +1 / -0 )
I’d say She belongs to me for one stands up. Beautiful melody and truly beautiful lyrics.
Doubtless. But poems are conceived without melody. That doesn't stop a song from having beautiful lyrics, and it certainly doesn't stop songwriting from being an admirable and demanding skill. In Dylan's case, his writing is definitely helped by his understanding of poetry (as a reader), but they're great songs without being good poems. There's no shame in that, either.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
The great Joni Mitchel wasnt impressed with him, calling him a plagiarist, among other things.
I'm aware of Joni Mitchell's opinion. Probably aware of, and heard, most of the people who are held up as his equal, too.
I'd still say he's outdone them all, though I don't buy into the hype about his songs standing as poetry. They're not - as poems, they would be pretty lousy.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
Instead it loses value. Takes almost $11 to buy what $1 could buy in 1950. But as you said, backing is important. The US dollar's value is almost entirely based on debt and trust, like a Ponzi scheme. It represents nothing real, unless you believe the promises of politicians are real. And it is manipulated and printed to suit those in power. A good crypto cannot be printed. It depends on trust in the code, which has been growing. The government uses its monetary system to control people. Crypto is free of that.
This is the usual waffle issued by crypto supporters. Along with stuff about crypto being the future of money, and being too complex for the rest of us to understand. All fine, we can more or less tune them out, as we're used to people who think they have a special understanding of the future, and we're also used to people who don't find massive increases in value suspect because it's not a bubble and this time it's different.
But as the charm of cryptocurrency, stated by just about every vocal supporter, is supposedly that it belongs to no country and no government, why should it be expected that when something goes wrong, some country or government will step in to 1) stand behind the claimed value of the cryptocurrency and 2) refund or arrange that someone else refunds the people who were bilked?
If people want to apply their pseudo-survivalist thinking to investing because they don't trust fiat currencies, it may not possible to stop them, or to stop them gloating about freeing themselves from government control. But where's the obligation to help them when they screw up and claim they've lost 40,000 amaze-o-dollars?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I guess he'll right a song about it and he'll win a grammy.
He might at that. He could justifiably be considered the best songwriter of the 20th century. And some of his finest work did indeed cover issues like civil rights, racism, and police and institutional brutality. And they had their effect.
5 ( +9 / -4 )
Yes. And that cryptocurrency is now worth 10 times more in "real money" than what it was at its peak before the Mt Gox scandal. Sorry you missed the boat.
I didn't. You can't miss something you were never trying to catch. I don't buy into what I don't need and don't trust.
But out of interest, how do you envisage these people having their "funds" returned to them: in what form should those funds be, and specifically who is to pay for it? And is it in your opinion appropriate that they receive their stolen funds at the supposed value at the time of theft, the current supposed value, the cash equivalent of the supposed value at the time of theft, or the cash that they originally put in, assuming they can provide evidence of any.
Because one thing about cash compared to crypto: it has backing, it represents something real, and it has a value that is commonly understood to the maximum number of people. That's why it rarely inflates to 10 times its value in a few years.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
I get sick of this. Why not just get/rewrite a plaque explaining that persons historical significance to the city and tell the full story (good and bad) rather than trying to erase them from history.
Statues aren't in themselves history. They're used to mark history, though as they're incapable of telling much of a story by themselves, they're essentially just visual symbols. And there's the problem, as symbolism can be offensive, and opinions can change over time, even if the statue was originally erected by popular demand (and they rarely are) .
This particular statue has a glorious history, by the way, of 7 years. It's not exactly going to tear a gaping hole in people's hearts and memories when it goes. Except possibly for the Gallagher Group, the corporation who for some reason gifted the statue in the first place. You might not know them, so let them introduce themselves in their own words: "We are a global leader in the innovation and marketing of animal management, security, fuel systems and contract manufacturing solutions."
A seven year old statue from a bland corporation. Such achingly poignant heritage, I may need to lie down for a while.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
I hope this means there may be some progress in the legal case for the return of the lost funds for customers.
Oh, you mean the real money that people trustingly swapped for cryptocurrency.
5 ( +7 / -2 )
Yes, the coronavirus is back with a vengeance as the Dem narrative to hurt American jobs, depress the economy and hopefully trick enough people into voting for Joe Biden by mail.
A timely reminder that voting by mail is a democratic right. Attempting to remove or dilute that right is an attempt to rig the election.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
The same people that sit without a doubt that Trump colluded with the Russians
Which he very obviously did, and continues to do.
An impeached traitor. History won't be kind.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
As if other lives besides black lives don't matter. The very name of their organization is racist.
No not really. It's three words that amount to a statement. The statement isn't that other lives don't matter, but that black lives do. And there's a context for that, which is that black lives are treated as if they don't. For example, when unarmed black people are killed by police - a common occurrence - or when unarmed black people are murdered by vigilantes, as Trayvon Martin was. His murder was what started the movement.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
With Citizens disarmed by Law (most weapons), and now the regular police being disarmed --that 10 min or longer wait for an armed police-person will be a LONG wait if faced by an armed criminal. Exactly how criminal like it.
Sorry, I prefer my police to be armed to protect lives and property as quickly as possible.
Alternatively, you could live in a country as safe as New Zealand, where there were 62 homicides in 2014, 64 in 2015, and 58 in 2016. Not all of those were even murders: the numbers for those years are 43, 48, and 50, respectively (the remainder classified as manslaughter). This is where the need for police to be constantly armed to protect lives and property, or their ability to do so even if they were, becomes less than obvious.
0 ( +0 / -0 )