Salman Rushdie attack

[Olddaddy]

Shocked at the report Salman Rushdie has been injured in a attack.

Regardless of his beliefs I really despise violence,just because someone has a different opinion to yours is no excuse to use violence to hurt someone.

Apparently he had a 4.2 million bounty on his head so money may have been the motivation for the attack rather than beliefs .

He is reported to have lost a eye and on a ventilator.

Terrible things humans do to each other 

 

[TotallyOz]

It is sad. And, the reason the world thinks America is unsafe is because of events like this.

[vinapu]

4 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

It is sad. And, the reason the world thinks America is unsafe is because of events like this.

no, school shootings are the reason for USA thought to be of dubious safety IMHO

[TotallyOz]

19 minutes ago, vinapu said:

no, school shootings are the reason for USA thought to be of dubious safety IMHO

no, not just that, but the constant violence of all of it. Churches, discos, streets, stages, etc. It is just overwhelming right now.

[Olddaddy]

1 hour ago, TotallyOz said:

no, not just that, but the constant violence of all of it. Churches, discos, streets, stages, etc. It is just overwhelming right now.

Yes I'm too afraid to travel to America on what I see on TV 

I'm thinking if I lived there would I carry a gun, and I'm against guns but that may be a turning point living there 😳

[PeterRS]

Throughout my career I have visited the USA 32 times and each time taken in several cities. I love much of the country and have very good friends there. But I think I have seen my last visit. The idea that the highest court in any country can order, in this case, New York where I always spent most of my time to overturn its no concealed gun carry policy so that anyone can carry a gun hidden on their person is anathema to me. Of course, that is not my only reason. But to use an inappropriate analogy, it's the icing on the cake.

[Olddaddy]

26 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

Throughout my career I have visited the USA 32 times and each time taken in several cities. I love much of the country and have very good friends there. But I think I have seen my last visit. The idea that the highest court in any country can order, in this case, New York where I always spent most of my time to overturn its no concealed gun carry policy so that anyone can carry a gun hidden on their person is anathema to me. Of course, that is not my only reason. But to use an inappropriate analogy, it's the icing on the cake.

I'm confused Peter ,are you saying you don't believe in carrying a gun there?

I guess they would have a law that you apply for a licence though first checking criminal history?

[PeterRS]

1 minute ago, Olddaddy said:

I'm confused Peter ,are you saying you don't believe in carrying a gun there?

I guess they would have a law that you apply for a licence though first checking criminal history?

No. I am saying I cannot understand - nor accept - that the highest court in any land has a right effectively to overturn a long standing law in a city and as a result insist that citizens be given the right to carry hidden weapons. From what we have read over the last years, it is obvious that in the USA criminal histories are not always checked. And what about mental history? The right wing always blames the mental health issue. How is that to be checked? Only for those who have visited a psychiatrist? The mental health issue is to all intents and purposes a red herring. The checks and balances clearly do not work.

[unicorn]

It's still difficult to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in much of the US (such as New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles). For what it's worth, most murders are among gang members, and murder rates tend to be highest in the parts of the US with the strictest gun laws. This might be because someone might think more carefully about shooting someone in a place like Texas, where anyone might shoot back. That being said, I support stricter gun laws, especially required background checks for criminal and mental health histories. All Swiss households have guns, yet their gun violence level is much lower. 

[alvnv]

6 hours ago, unicorn said:

It's still difficult to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in much of the US (such as New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles). For what it's worth, most murders are among gang members, and murder rates tend to be highest in the parts of the US with the strictest gun laws. This might be because someone might think more carefully about shooting someone in a place like Texas, where anyone might shoot back. That being said, I support stricter gun laws, especially required background checks for criminal and mental health histories. All Swiss households have guns, yet their gun violence level is much lower. 

Yet most of the mass shootings take place in the states with the least restrictive gun laws. As for the “much of the US”, here’s a list of gun laws by state: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

[PeterRS]

6 hours ago, unicorn said:

That being said, I support stricter gun laws, especially required background checks for criminal and mental health histories. All Swiss households have guns, yet their gun violence level is much lower. 

And how precisely do you check mental heath issues? Is everyone's access to internet sites to be monitored for those with tendencies to look up sites about guns or mass shootings? As I suggested, in my view the mental health issue is a total red herring.

And sorry to say the Switzerland analogy is another red herring. It is a patriotic duty in Switerland to learn how to use a firearm and even to own one. Switzerland has a very small army numbering less than 135,000. Yet roughly two thirds of Swiss males must undergo mandatory military service when they have to supply there own equipment, including guns. They then remain 'on call' should the need arise up to a certain age which is usually 35 but can be as high as 50.

Hence, there are around 2 million guns for a population of over 8.5 million, unlike the USA where there are more guns than citizens. But in Switzerland there are very strict rules and regulations re firearm ownership and storage. Also unlike the USA, the country has not had a mass shooting since 2001 whereas the USA seems to have more than one a week on average. And unlike the USA, the country's overall gun murder rate is close to zero. 

The Swizerland analogy is a favourite of the US NRA. It is a false analogy.

[unicorn]

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

And how precisely do you check mental heath issues? ...

There are lists of those with serious mental health issues, restraining orders, and, of course, criminal backgrounds. In California, there is a 2-week waiting period after purchasing a gun before the purchaser can receive the gun he purchased, to give authorities the time to go over those lists. I support that measure. In many states, one can just go to a gun show and buy a gun on the spot, which I feel is a terrible policy. I very much oppose the NRA. That being said, it is simply a fact that gun ownership in Switzerland is many-fold (like 10X to 100X)  higher than that of countless other countries with similar gun violence rates. Obviously, much work needs to be done in the US to cut down on gun violence. One can certainly argue how that's best done. However, it is simply false that civilian gun ownership leads to high gun violence rates. 

By the way, getting to the subject of the original posting, Mr. Rushdie was attacked with a knife. Just to get our facts straight, again. His attack had nothing to do with gun violence in the US, and much to do about the fact that he had a $4 million bounty on his head and was hated by many fundamentalist Muslims. I think this event had nothing to do with American being an unsafe place, and everything to do about someone who knew or should have known his life was threatened from showing up at a poorly-guarded event. Of course, whether or not American is an unsafe is a matter of opinion. However, the attack on Rushdie could have happened anywhere. I personally would have been more cautious had I been in his shoes. 

[PeterRS]

9 hours ago, unicorn said:

One can certainly argue how that's best done. However, it is simply false that civilian gun ownership leads to high gun violence rates.

Again the Swiss argument - and sorry to say again it is a false analogy. 25% or thereabouts of Swiss HAVE to own guns for military reasons. Most do not wish to own a gun - it is a legal requirement. In the USA the vast majority of people who own guns - some as many as six guns or more(!) - do so because they WISH to own guns. Now, I accept there are several reasons for this and protection against the prevalence of urban and other violence is definitely one, but that does not negate the fact that there is little or no comparison to Switzerland.

9 hours ago, unicorn said:

Mr. Rushdie was attacked with a knife. Just to get our facts straight, again. His attack had nothing to do with gun violence in the US, and much to do about the fact that he had a $4 million bounty on his head and was hated by many fundamentalist Muslims. I think this event had nothing to do with American being an unsafe place, and everything to do about someone who knew or should have known his life was threatened from showing up at a poorly-guarded event. Of course, whether or not American is an unsafe is a matter of opinion. However, the attack on Rushdie could have happened anywhere. I personally would have been more cautious had I been in his shoes. 

You seem to be very selective about where is safe and where could be unsafe. Mr. Rushdie has spent almost 3 1/2 decades as a marked man. For the ten years he was under that Islamic fatwa, he was protected by the UK police (few of whom are armed with more than a truncheon). Since then he has travelled, given talks in several parts of the world and lived his life as best he can as a free man, despite some nut jobs wanting him dead. You state that it was Rushdie himself who "should have known that his life was threatened from showing up at a poorly-guarded even." That is definitely twisting fact 180 degrees. It was the event - one to which he was invited, let us recall - that was perfectly aware of the background to his life and yet made no attempt to boost security in case there was some attempt on his life at THEIR event! 

[Olddaddy]

13 hours ago, alvnv said:

Yet most of the mass shootings take place in the states with the least restrictive gun laws. As for the “much of the US”, here’s a list of gun laws by state: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

I think if I lived there I would rather have a concealed gun on me,better to be safe than sorry .

Interestingly when I was in the Philippines last month there was gun shops in the malls 😳

I had no idea you can buy guns there legally although you need a permit ,but displayed in one window of a gun shop was a machine gun !! 

[PeterRS]

13 hours ago, unicorn said:

However, it is simply false that civilian gun ownership leads to high gun violence rates. 

I find that hard to believe. It would certainly be nice to see some facts. As for the mental health issue, I draw your attention to this 2016 CNN article -

"The difficulty is that policies intended to keep guns away from mentally ill people who are likely to be violent depend on clinicians' ability to accurately identify them. Research shows that risk prediction, especially for statistically rare events like mass shootings, is an inexact science, 'only slightly more accurate than flipping a coin.'"

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/25/health/gun-violence-mental-health-issue/index.html

I don't like the idea the idea of those odds that I might be shot being the equivalent of flipping a coin!

In the absence of proof, there is plenty of proof that reducing gun ownership significantly reduces gun violence. Following the horrific school shoooting in Dunblane in 1996, the UK enacted much tighter gun laws. Private ownership of handguns was banned and the UK now has one of the lowest levels of gun violence in the world.

Australia is the same. Following a spate of gun violence in 1996 and 1997, legislation was enacted which included much stricter registration on ownership of guns, as well as a total  ban on private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Additionally a mandatory programme bought back roughly 650,000 privately held guns. As a result, suicide and gun violence rates dropped by somewhere around between 45% and 55%. 

Meantime, there is evidence to illustrate that the degree of shootinig, especially mass shootings including those in the USA, is having an effect on young people with a propensity for violence (for one reason or another) in other countries. The UK has a problem with youths being radicalized. In a police raid on a private home last July, one 13-year old  was found to have " a military uniform, a Confederate flag, a hard drive filled with evidence of white nationalist radicalization and a guide to making bombs . . . A youth court heard that police raided the boy’s home after he had sent messages on Instagram saying he wanted to replicate the 1999 Columbine school massacre in Colorado and attack an orphanage." 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/uk-problem-radicalization-not-shootings-difference-gun-access-rcna30611

13 hours ago, unicorn said:

Mr. Rushdie was attacked with a knife . . . I personally would have been more cautious had I been in his shoes. 

He is a free man who has lived as a free man ever since his contentious book was published. If I happened to  be in his shoes and was invited to address a conference, I would totally expect the event to take appropriate care for my safety. I have no hesitation in saying again, any suggestion that he is the one who should have been more careful is twisting the fact 180 degrees!

[unicorn]

2 hours ago, PeterRS said:

I find that hard to believe. It would certainly be nice to see some facts. As for the mental health issue, I draw your attention to this 2016 CNN article -

"The difficulty is that policies intended to keep guns away from mentally ill people who are likely to be violent depend on clinicians' ability to accurately identify them. Research shows that risk prediction, especially for statistically rare events like mass shootings, is an inexact science, 'only slightly more accurate than flipping a coin.'"

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/25/health/gun-violence-mental-health-issue/index.html

I don't like the idea the idea of those odds that I might be shot being the equivalent of flipping a coin!

In the absence of proof, there is plenty of proof that reducing gun ownership significantly reduces gun violence. Following the horrific school shoooting in Dunblane in 1996, the UK enacted much tighter gun laws. Private ownership of handguns was banned and the UK now has one of the lowest levels of gun violence in the world.

Australia is the same. Following a spate of gun violence in 1996 and 1997, legislation was enacted which included much stricter registration on ownership of guns, as well as a total  ban on private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Additionally a mandatory programme bought back roughly 650,000 privately held guns. As a result, suicide and gun violence rates dropped by somewhere around between 45% and 55%. 

Meantime, there is evidence to illustrate that the degree of shootinig, especially mass shootings including those in the USA, is having an effect on young people with a propensity for violence (for one reason or another) in other countries. The UK has a problem with youths being radicalized. In a police raid on a private home last July, one 13-year old  was found to have " a military uniform, a Confederate flag, a hard drive filled with evidence of white nationalist radicalization and a guide to making bombs . . . A youth court heard that police raided the boy’s home after he had sent messages on Instagram saying he wanted to replicate the 1999 Columbine school massacre in Colorado and attack an orphanage." 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/uk-problem-radicalization-not-shootings-difference-gun-access-rcna30611

He is a free man who has lived as a free man ever since his contentious book was published. If I happened to  be in his shoes and was invited to address a conference, I would totally expect the event to take appropriate care for my safety. I have no hesitation in saying again, any suggestion that he is the one who should have been more careful is twisting the fact 180 degrees!

Well, I do agree that banning private gun ownership would likely reduce gun violence in the US, though I wouldn't be in favor of that. We have a saying "Freedom isn't free." It seems pretty obvious, however, that Rushdie should have personally inquired about the safety measures at the event, however. Yes, the event planners should also have known better, but the fact that Rushdie should have been more cautious himself is obvious at face value--res ipsa loquitur. He was in complete seclusion for years, and I guess got too confident and sloppy over time. Obviously he is not THE only one who should have been concerned about his safety, but even more obviously, he should have been ONE of the people who should have been more cautious. I can't imagine even he'd disagree with that at this point. 

[alvnv]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

Well, I do agree that banning private gun ownership would likely reduce gun violence in the US, though I wouldn't be in favor of that. We have a saying "Freedom isn't free." It seems pretty obvious, however, that Rushdie should have personally inquired about the safety measures at the event, however. Yes, the event planners should also have known better, but the fact that Rushdie should have been more cautious himself is obvious at face value--res ipsa loquitur. He was in complete seclusion for years, and I guess got too confident and sloppy over time. Obviously he is not THE only one who should have been concerned about his safety, but even more obviously, he should have been ONE of the people who should have been more cautious. I can't imagine even he'd disagree with that at this point. 

Exactly: “Freedom isn’t free” - and the cost of freedom should be giving up assault rifles, automatic and semi-automatic machine guns rather than sacrificing the lives of innocents to make small-dicked toothless dumb bastards feel more manly because they’re packing an arsenal. Limit private ownership to single-barrel hunting rifles for avid hunters (whom I do not understand at all) and pistols for personal Safety.

Blaming Mr. Rushdie is almost like blaming a rape victim for dressing too provocatively, or a patient for undergoing a surgery despite knowing about possible complications. We all take risks in our everyday lives: working, driving, flying, even eating - but we still hold others responsible when they do not keep their ends of bargains - whether it’s our employers, car manufacturer, airlines, or restaurants and grocers. Chautauqua Institution has been around for May decades, hosting celebrities and international events. They should have taken precautions and should bear the responsibility.

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, unicorn said:

 It seems pretty obvious, however, that Rushdie should have personally inquired about the safety measures at the event, however. Yes, the event planners should also have known better, but the fact that Rushdie should have been more cautious himself is obvious at face value--res ipsa loquitur.

We will have to agree to disagree because there is no way I can agree with that comment. The man has been virtually free for a quarter of a century without police protection - at least in the UK and I cannot imagine other countries are going to pay for such protection. If he is invited to address an event in a part of the world he probably does not know well, how can you seriously expect him to be responsible in any way for his own safety? I assume he was put up in a hotel. Would you expect him to inspect every entrance and exit and ask the front desk for a list of all guests in case one might be out to harm him? With respect that's just plain ridiculous! How about the fact that he has openly lived in New York since 2000. His address in Lower Manhattan near Union Square is not difficult to find. Do the New York police offer him round the clock protection? Of course not. He's a private citizen.

The simple fact is he was invited by the Chautaqua Institution and his presence in that part of the world was advertised to the world well in advance. The organisers thus became totally responsible for ensuring his safety. I doubt if he actually goes around on his travels announcing his presence in advance. Therefore it would be much more difficult for a potential trouble maker to find out his location. Certainly they failed to find it for decades until last week.

[unicorn]

14 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

...The man has been virtually free for a quarter of a century without police protection - at least in the UK and I cannot imagine other countries are going to pay for such protection...

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy#Attacks

"...Over the next few days, Iranian officials offered a bounty of $6 million for killing Rushdie, who was thus forced to live under police protection for the next nine years. On 7 March 1989, the United Kingdom and Iran broke diplomatic relations over the Rushdie controversy..."

He was under police protection for quite a bit of time in the UK. As far as i can tell, no taxpayer-funded protection in the US.

[unicorn]

24 minutes ago, alvnv said:

...Blaming Mr. Rushdie is almost like blaming a rape victim for dressing too provocatively, or a patient for undergoing a surgery despite knowing about possible complications....

Completely false comparisons. Obviously, the person with primary responsibility in the Rushdie attack was the man who stabbed him, just as the person responsible for a rape is the rapist himself. That being said, a wise person does what he can to mitigate his risks. If I leave a bicycle unlocked and unattended, and someone steals the bicycle, the responsible party is the thief. Nevertheless, it's fairly common sense that unlocked bicycles are extremely easy to steal, so almost anyone would say that it would be foolish to leave a bicycle unsecured. If a woman walks alone in the middle of the night in Central Park in NYC and gets raped, the responsibility is on the rapist. However, walking alone unarmed in a secluded part of Central Park in the middle of the night is certainly not a good idea. NYPD is not the responsible party. 

Similarly, one would have to think it's common sense that if there were a multi-million dollar bounty on one's head, that one would be careful about security arrangements at any well-advertised public appearance. I can't imagine too many sensible people would think "Well, even if I'm killed, the man attacking me would be responsible, and I'm pretty sure he'd go to jail, so I'm OK with taking that chance." 

And again, the surgeon's responsibility is to advise the patient of the potential risks and benefits of a procedure, and, of course, to be properly trained before performing a procedure. If a complication occurs, the surgeon is only responsible if he was negligent (for example, performing the procedure while drunk, or performing a procedure he wasn't properly trained to do). 

[alvnv]

25 minutes ago, unicorn said:

Completely false comparisons. Obviously, the person with primary responsibility in the Rushdie attack was the man who stabbed him, just as the person responsible for a rape is the rapist himself. That being said, a wise person does what he can to mitigate his risks. If I leave a bicycle unlocked and unattended, and someone steals the bicycle, the responsible party is the thief. Nevertheless, it's fairly common sense that unlocked bicycles are extremely easy to steal, so almost anyone would say that it would be foolish to leave a bicycle unsecured. If a woman walks alone in the middle of the night in Central Park in NYC and gets raped, the responsibility is on the rapist. However, walking alone unarmed in a secluded part of Central Park in the middle of the night is certainly not a good idea. NYPD is not the responsible party. 

Similarly, one would have to think it's common sense that if there were a multi-million dollar bounty on one's head, that one would be careful about security arrangements at any well-advertised public appearance. I can't imagine too many sensible people would think "Well, even if I'm killed, the man attacking me would be responsible, and I'm pretty sure he'd go to jail, so I'm OK with taking that chance." 

And again, the surgeon's responsibility is to advise the patient of the potential risks and benefits of a procedure, and, of course, to be properly trained before performing a procedure. If a complication occurs, the surgeon is only responsible if he was negligent (for example, performing the procedure while drunk, or performing a procedure he wasn't properly trained to do). 

 

[vinapu]

33 minutes ago, unicorn said:

 That being said, a wise person does what he can to mitigate his risks.

well said . It's why we, even if we trust our neighbors , still lock the door when leaving home.

it not to say Mr. Rushdie is to be blamed , since his attacker was highly motivated it seems, only way to avoid that attack was to provide strong security detachment which was not done

[vinapu]

15 minutes ago, alvnv said:

 

I know version " if my grandmother was standing on her hands she would have been a piggy bank"