I write this blog less than a week after the Sandy Hook massacre, in which a gunman, Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in an American elementary school : 20 children and 6 teachers.
In the wake of this horrific event, many people on the American left (and to a lesser extent the right) have called for stricter gun regulations, while most (but not all) on the right have accused Democrats and Liberals of politicising a tragedy. As a British/Scottish/European I find many of the arguments against gun control in America staggering. But I'm not going to attack the NRA. Instead, let me list the ways I agree with the National Rifle Association, and then give reasons why I believe stricter gun control in the USA is necessary.
1) The Second Amendment to the constitution of the United States of America gives civilians the right to keep and bear arms.
True. The second amendment of the US constitution states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
Some contend that this means that some sort of governmental agency or security force has the right to bear arms, rather than the average American. From what I can understand, the text states that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say that the rights of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the first point on which I agree with the NRA. The US constitution clearly does give civilians the right to own guns.
Where I disagree, is that the NRA seems to believe that this means that there should be no restriction on what type of weapons civilians should be allowed to own. Should a civilian be allowed to own a nuclear bomb? An F15? It's hard to imagine any reasonable person would say yes to those questions. Is that in itself not a form of gun control? Why then should it be that the average American can own a Bushmaster M4, a semi-automatic rifle which Adam Lanza used to kill 20 children? A weapon such as this has one purpose: to kill people. Especially when equipped with (legally purchased) bullets which fragment upon impact to make removal or treatment more difficult. What possible reason could there be for allowing civilians to possess such a weapon? To hunt? Only if you want to be spitting lead out of your venison as you eat it. The only thing such a weapon is designed for is to kill people.
2) If the teachers at Sandy Hook had guns, less people would have died.
Again, this is probably true. A teacher with a gun may have been able to take out the shooter.
That being said, would arming teachers really be a good thing? All it takes is one psychopathic teacher (as in the Dunblane massacre), or even a careless one for something tragic to happen. The USA has a population of 300 million. Are we to believe that not even one teacher, in one school would be capable of murdering the children in their classroom? Or that one teacher in one school would be careless enough to leave their firearm lying around, to be picked up by a young child who, in play, could accidentally fire it on a classmate? In addition, Columbine High School had armed guards, but that didn't stop Dylan Harris and Eric Klebold from murdering 13 of their peers before turning the guns on themselves. Nor did having guns help Lanza's mother, who he shot with her own guns before embarking upon his terrible killing spree.
Furthermore, what is the logical conclusion to this argument? Give toddlers a gun?
3) You can't stop bad people doing bad things.
Certainly true.
However, you can limit the impact of the bad things that bad people do. On the day of the Sandy Hook massacre, a man with a knife wounded 22 children in a Chinese school. There are bad people in the world. They will do bad things. The difference is that the man in China did not have a gun as Adam Lanza did. No-one died in China. 26 people died in the USA.
It seems to boil down to two Utopian ideals. The NRA and its supporters want everyone in America to own a gun. This, they contend, would mean that criminals would think twice about acting outside of the law knowing they could be shot and killed for doing so by ordinary civilians.
The other is that no-one would own a gun.
Clearly, both these ideas are impossible. But shouldn't America work towards one, however impossible? Shouldn't we, as human beings, strive for perfection even if we know it's unattainable?
So which one?
I'd put it this way: if the teachers and staff at Sandy Hook had firearms available to them, the deathtoll would have still been at least 1: Adam Lanza.
If no-one in the building, including Lanza, had access to guns then the death-toll would probably have been zero.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Monday, June 4, 2012
Euro 2012 - Guaranteed money making tips (not guaranteed)
With Euro 2012 around the corner, and me being some sort of demi-God of football knowledge, here are some top tips to make money from the bookies.
Winner: Germany look a good bet to win the tournament, but at 3/1 there isn't much point backing them. If you feel like it though, a cheeky tenner will get you a night out if they win. Spain are 11/4 which is ridiculously short and they won't win anyway. I'll be sticking a couple of quid on Russia. They're at 20/1, unbeaten in 14 games and have the easiest group. Expect them to come out on top against Poland, Greece and the Czech Republic. Following that they'll have a tough match against the runner up in the Group of Death, but a strong defence with Igor Akinfeev being protected by Berezutskiy and Ignashevic means they should be tough to break down and they have quality up front in Dzagoev, Arshavin, Pavlyuchenko and Kerzhakov. Although you wouldn't make them favourites, Advocaat's side would only have to win 3 matches once they get out of the group stage. As Greece showed in 2004, being solid in defence and lethal on the break can take you all the way. France at 10/1 and Italy at 14/1 could also be worth a punt.
Top Scorer: Cristiano Ronaldo has had a phenomenal goalscoring season, and is decent value at 12/1, but question marks remain over whether he can score enough goals in a poor Portugal side in a very tough group. Miroslav Klose always seems to score goals in international tournaments and might be worth a shot at 14/1, and you can get 20/1 on Germany winning it with him as top scorer. However, I have put a mighty £1 on Zlatan Ibrahimovic. 40/1 is an incredible value for a man who scored 35 goals in 44 games this season - one more than Wayne Rooney who is at 33/1 and suspended for the first two games! The long odds are likely due to his presence in an average Swedish team, but England and Ukraine have shaky defences, and Ibra's skill and power could seriously expose the likes of Jagielka and Lescott.
Finalists: A Germany v Russia final comes in at 28/1, which could tie in nicely with previous bets. However, if you'd rather not put all your eggs in one basket, Italy v France at 40/1 looks good value. Both sides breezed through qualifying, and should get out of their groups, and while you wouldn't make either side favourites to beat Spain, Germany or Holland, France are somewhat of an unknown quantity and it's never wise to write off Italy.
Group Winners/Runners up:
Group A: Hard to see past Russia for group winners (8/5), but 6/4 for a solid but unspectacular Czech Republic side to come in behind them is decent.
Group B: Germany should get top spot here. While 18/1 is tempting for Denmark, there's a reason their odds are so long. Holland at 4/7 to just sneak it from Denmark and Portugal.
Group C: Much dependent on how good Italy are when they arrive. Spain, much like Brazil, do not like facing Italy. Indeed, Italy were the last side to stop Spain from scoring, back at Euro 2008 as the Spanish won on penalties. That was a great Spanish team and a poor Italian one and Italy look in better shape now. An opening day win for Italy could see them finish top at 7/2. I can't see Croatia or Ireland being worth a punt to qualify, so it's Spain to follow them at (1/7)
Group D: A very interesting one, and hard to predict. France SHOULD have enough to top the group (7/4) but from there it's hard to predict. Home advantage could spur Ukraine on, Roy Hodgson's England look decently set up to grind out results and Sweden look solid and will be dangerous if Ibrahimovic is firing. Tentatively I'd back Sweden at 2-1.
Oddities: Italy to be knocked out in the semi final is 5/1 which looks a good bet if they manage to win Group C. Shane Long for Ireland's top scorer is at 12/1, which looks decent given they probably won't score many goals - one goal may realistically be enough. An outside bet of Spain not to qualify at 6/1 might be worth a shot for the more adventurous. If they lose to Italy in the first game and are frustrated by Ireland in the second it's certainly possible.
So concludes this blog. Drop me a comment with your tips if you so desire, and be sure and come back here and abuse my predictions when they all go horribly wrong. Good luck everyone!
(odds from Ladbrokes, bet 365 and oddschecker.com)
Winner: Germany look a good bet to win the tournament, but at 3/1 there isn't much point backing them. If you feel like it though, a cheeky tenner will get you a night out if they win. Spain are 11/4 which is ridiculously short and they won't win anyway. I'll be sticking a couple of quid on Russia. They're at 20/1, unbeaten in 14 games and have the easiest group. Expect them to come out on top against Poland, Greece and the Czech Republic. Following that they'll have a tough match against the runner up in the Group of Death, but a strong defence with Igor Akinfeev being protected by Berezutskiy and Ignashevic means they should be tough to break down and they have quality up front in Dzagoev, Arshavin, Pavlyuchenko and Kerzhakov. Although you wouldn't make them favourites, Advocaat's side would only have to win 3 matches once they get out of the group stage. As Greece showed in 2004, being solid in defence and lethal on the break can take you all the way. France at 10/1 and Italy at 14/1 could also be worth a punt.
Top Scorer: Cristiano Ronaldo has had a phenomenal goalscoring season, and is decent value at 12/1, but question marks remain over whether he can score enough goals in a poor Portugal side in a very tough group. Miroslav Klose always seems to score goals in international tournaments and might be worth a shot at 14/1, and you can get 20/1 on Germany winning it with him as top scorer. However, I have put a mighty £1 on Zlatan Ibrahimovic. 40/1 is an incredible value for a man who scored 35 goals in 44 games this season - one more than Wayne Rooney who is at 33/1 and suspended for the first two games! The long odds are likely due to his presence in an average Swedish team, but England and Ukraine have shaky defences, and Ibra's skill and power could seriously expose the likes of Jagielka and Lescott.
Finalists: A Germany v Russia final comes in at 28/1, which could tie in nicely with previous bets. However, if you'd rather not put all your eggs in one basket, Italy v France at 40/1 looks good value. Both sides breezed through qualifying, and should get out of their groups, and while you wouldn't make either side favourites to beat Spain, Germany or Holland, France are somewhat of an unknown quantity and it's never wise to write off Italy.
Group Winners/Runners up:
Group A: Hard to see past Russia for group winners (8/5), but 6/4 for a solid but unspectacular Czech Republic side to come in behind them is decent.
Group B: Germany should get top spot here. While 18/1 is tempting for Denmark, there's a reason their odds are so long. Holland at 4/7 to just sneak it from Denmark and Portugal.
Group C: Much dependent on how good Italy are when they arrive. Spain, much like Brazil, do not like facing Italy. Indeed, Italy were the last side to stop Spain from scoring, back at Euro 2008 as the Spanish won on penalties. That was a great Spanish team and a poor Italian one and Italy look in better shape now. An opening day win for Italy could see them finish top at 7/2. I can't see Croatia or Ireland being worth a punt to qualify, so it's Spain to follow them at (1/7)
Group D: A very interesting one, and hard to predict. France SHOULD have enough to top the group (7/4) but from there it's hard to predict. Home advantage could spur Ukraine on, Roy Hodgson's England look decently set up to grind out results and Sweden look solid and will be dangerous if Ibrahimovic is firing. Tentatively I'd back Sweden at 2-1.
Oddities: Italy to be knocked out in the semi final is 5/1 which looks a good bet if they manage to win Group C. Shane Long for Ireland's top scorer is at 12/1, which looks decent given they probably won't score many goals - one goal may realistically be enough. An outside bet of Spain not to qualify at 6/1 might be worth a shot for the more adventurous. If they lose to Italy in the first game and are frustrated by Ireland in the second it's certainly possible.
So concludes this blog. Drop me a comment with your tips if you so desire, and be sure and come back here and abuse my predictions when they all go horribly wrong. Good luck everyone!
(odds from Ladbrokes, bet 365 and oddschecker.com)
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Kony 2012 - A few thoughts
Ok. Allow me to begin by stating how evil Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army are.
The Lord's Resistance Army is a millitant rebel group. They were initially funded and armed by the Sudanese government, as a way to attempt to punish Uganda for supporting an uprising in Southern Sudan. You may have heard of this. What you may not have heard of, is the fact that the United States and French governments armed both the governments of Chad and Sudan, as they saw this as a way of stopping the progress of Col. Gaddafi. This is really a whole other debate, but I'll give you the wiki of the former Chadian president Hissene Habre as it makes for interesting reading: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiss%C3%A8ne_Habr%C3%A9). The whole history of the US, the UK, the former USSR and France in Africa is terrible. Most of these horrible groups such as the LRA, the Janjaweed, Gaddafi and more were armed during the Cold War. The United States armed Sudan and Chad because the Soviet Union had armed Gaddafi and so on and so forth.
So, Kony. It is estimated that he has abducted over 65,000 children to fight in his LRA. He and his army stand accused of murder, abduction, forcing women into the sex trade and even cannibalism. (http://www.royalafricansociety.org/articles-by-richard-dowden/261.html)
This is where Invisible Children and their Kony 2012 campaign come in. The group uploaded an undeniably affecting video on March 5th, highlighting the atrocities commited by Kony. Invisible Children has been involved in many important and worthy projects in Uganda, such as the building of schools and the Protection Plan, a service designed to provide rehabilitation and family reunification for victims of Kony and the LRA. However, it is when it comes to the apprehension of Kony that I think Invisible Children should be put under more scrutiny. Is the video which is currently being shared all over Facebook and Twitter really to be taken at face value?
Last year, Invisible Children spent $8.8 million. I know this because as a not-for-profit organisation, IC's accounts can easily be found online (Google it. If you can't find it, I'll send you the pdf). Of this, only $2.8 million went to direct services, such as the ones I mentioned previously. $2.2 million was spent on travel costs and film making. Each of the 3 co-founders took home $90,000 in pay. Admittedly, this is only 3% of the total costs of the charity but it seems to me like disproportionate amount of money is being spent on films and awareness rather than directly helping in Uganda. Of course awareness is important, but aren't they over-spending on this? Just my opinion. In addition, the website Charity Navigator.org only gives Invisible Children 2 stars out of 4 for "transparency and accountability", as the accounts it provides have not been independently audited.
This brings me onto my next problem with IC. Their relationship with the Ugandan government. If not financially (I am willing to give IC the benefit of the doubt despite their lack of transparency), Invisible Children publically lends its support the Ugandan government army the UPDF. Given that (as IC admits in the previous link) Kony left Uganda in 2006, this seems odd. Odder still, the fact that the UPDF has itself been accused of atrocities, such as rape and looting.
Can is really be justified, supporting an army like that, just to capture an even worse man? Is THIS what we want from our charities? Even more shockingly, the Ugandan government has actually granted amnesty to thousands of LRA soldiers for the crimes they commited while the group was operational in Uganda. And it's not me saying this - ask Amnesty International. Remember, this is the Ugandan government whose army Invisible Children supports.
You may have noticed this blog is rather link-heavy. This is because I think it's important to show where you are getting your information from. This is my third problem with IC. Some of the information contained in the Kony 2012 video is just not true. After 14 minutes they state that everyone they spoke to in Washington said that there was "no way" the US government would get involved. "The government said it was impossible". Well, that's simply not true. US Africa Command has been trying to take out Kony for years. The reason you probably haven't heard about this is they haven't been very good at it. Nicknamed Operation Lightning Thunder, an attempt to destroy the LRA once and for all was made, with US troops commanding an alliance of Ugandan, Sudanese and Congolese forces. Sadly, Kony had in fact left Garamba National Park prior to the offensive, and the LRA massacred over 900 people in reprisal attacks. I'm not defending the US government, but are IC unaware of this, and other similar operations? Or are they lying? After all, Invisible Children supports millitary intervention. However, when Kony surrounds himself with women and children, and such action will result in the loss of many of those women and children, as we have seen.
Joseph Kony is an evil man. He should be brought to justice and put on trial in the Hague for his crimes. But supporting the apprehension of Kony, shouldn't mean putting blind faith in the Kony 2012 campaign.
The Lord's Resistance Army is a millitant rebel group. They were initially funded and armed by the Sudanese government, as a way to attempt to punish Uganda for supporting an uprising in Southern Sudan. You may have heard of this. What you may not have heard of, is the fact that the United States and French governments armed both the governments of Chad and Sudan, as they saw this as a way of stopping the progress of Col. Gaddafi. This is really a whole other debate, but I'll give you the wiki of the former Chadian president Hissene Habre as it makes for interesting reading: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiss%C3%A8ne_Habr%C3%A9). The whole history of the US, the UK, the former USSR and France in Africa is terrible. Most of these horrible groups such as the LRA, the Janjaweed, Gaddafi and more were armed during the Cold War. The United States armed Sudan and Chad because the Soviet Union had armed Gaddafi and so on and so forth.
So, Kony. It is estimated that he has abducted over 65,000 children to fight in his LRA. He and his army stand accused of murder, abduction, forcing women into the sex trade and even cannibalism. (http://www.royalafricansociety.org/articles-by-richard-dowden/261.html)
This is where Invisible Children and their Kony 2012 campaign come in. The group uploaded an undeniably affecting video on March 5th, highlighting the atrocities commited by Kony. Invisible Children has been involved in many important and worthy projects in Uganda, such as the building of schools and the Protection Plan, a service designed to provide rehabilitation and family reunification for victims of Kony and the LRA. However, it is when it comes to the apprehension of Kony that I think Invisible Children should be put under more scrutiny. Is the video which is currently being shared all over Facebook and Twitter really to be taken at face value?
Last year, Invisible Children spent $8.8 million. I know this because as a not-for-profit organisation, IC's accounts can easily be found online (Google it. If you can't find it, I'll send you the pdf). Of this, only $2.8 million went to direct services, such as the ones I mentioned previously. $2.2 million was spent on travel costs and film making. Each of the 3 co-founders took home $90,000 in pay. Admittedly, this is only 3% of the total costs of the charity but it seems to me like disproportionate amount of money is being spent on films and awareness rather than directly helping in Uganda. Of course awareness is important, but aren't they over-spending on this? Just my opinion. In addition, the website Charity Navigator.org only gives Invisible Children 2 stars out of 4 for "transparency and accountability", as the accounts it provides have not been independently audited.
This brings me onto my next problem with IC. Their relationship with the Ugandan government. If not financially (I am willing to give IC the benefit of the doubt despite their lack of transparency), Invisible Children publically lends its support the Ugandan government army the UPDF. Given that (as IC admits in the previous link) Kony left Uganda in 2006, this seems odd. Odder still, the fact that the UPDF has itself been accused of atrocities, such as rape and looting.
Can is really be justified, supporting an army like that, just to capture an even worse man? Is THIS what we want from our charities? Even more shockingly, the Ugandan government has actually granted amnesty to thousands of LRA soldiers for the crimes they commited while the group was operational in Uganda. And it's not me saying this - ask Amnesty International. Remember, this is the Ugandan government whose army Invisible Children supports.
You may have noticed this blog is rather link-heavy. This is because I think it's important to show where you are getting your information from. This is my third problem with IC. Some of the information contained in the Kony 2012 video is just not true. After 14 minutes they state that everyone they spoke to in Washington said that there was "no way" the US government would get involved. "The government said it was impossible". Well, that's simply not true. US Africa Command has been trying to take out Kony for years. The reason you probably haven't heard about this is they haven't been very good at it. Nicknamed Operation Lightning Thunder, an attempt to destroy the LRA once and for all was made, with US troops commanding an alliance of Ugandan, Sudanese and Congolese forces. Sadly, Kony had in fact left Garamba National Park prior to the offensive, and the LRA massacred over 900 people in reprisal attacks. I'm not defending the US government, but are IC unaware of this, and other similar operations? Or are they lying? After all, Invisible Children supports millitary intervention. However, when Kony surrounds himself with women and children, and such action will result in the loss of many of those women and children, as we have seen.
Joseph Kony is an evil man. He should be brought to justice and put on trial in the Hague for his crimes. But supporting the apprehension of Kony, shouldn't mean putting blind faith in the Kony 2012 campaign.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)