Woman Shoots/kills knife-wielding intruder.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The achievement of menarch was, for many cultures, the signal that a female was ready to get married/have a mate. Biblical "morality" was forced on that later. (Although I don't find "age of consent" in the Bible, perhaps because the damn thing makes me woozy when I try to read it.)

Well, Biblical morality was that when girls hit puberty they were ready to marry. You won't find any concern with rape at all in the Bible, except from a perspective of property rights. There really wasn't any such a concept of rape and consent to sex in the old Jewish and Christian religions. If a man raped a girl and it was discovered, and she was unmarried, he had to marry her because she was now spoiled. The "you break it, you bought it" rule. And, if the girl was already married, then you'd be killed for your crime (against the man), and she'd be an adulteress.

"No morality without God". Gotta love it.

[PsychoSerenity]

I think it's all a little wired, but I don't know if it is, or if it's just because I'm not used to American news. The reporter seems to be talking about it as if it's a happy story - and getting her to pose with the shotgun - what the fuck is that about?

People want to see the gun.

I've also read enough British "news" reports to know to an absolute certainty that the arrogance and conceit expressed by Brits that their population does not salivate just as much as Americans for gratuitous and sensational stories of this kind. There is a kind of cognitive dissonance on this matter, and perhaps its an extension of British class-based pomposity that considers Americans and others to be vulgar and lower class by definition.

The tabloids print all kinds of shit but we certainly don't have that kind of thing on TV. But it's probably just because I'm not used to your news channels - I was assuming your abc was something like our bbc, but the other TV report from newschannel4 seemed a lot more normal to me i.e. less enthusiastic about someone being dead, and more considerate of how the poor woman was feeling.

[Coito ergo sum]

The achievement of menarch was, for many cultures, the signal that a female was ready to get married/have a mate. Biblical "morality" was forced on that later. (Although I don't find "age of consent" in the Bible, perhaps because the damn thing makes me woozy when I try to read it.)

Well, Biblical morality was that when girls hit puberty they were ready to marry. You won't find any concern with rape at all in the Bible, except from a perspective of property rights. There really wasn't any such a concept of rape and consent to sex in the old Jewish and Christian religions. If a man raped a girl and it was discovered, and she was unmarried, he had to marry her because she was now spoiled. The "you break it, you bought it" rule. And, if the girl was already married, then you'd be killed for your crime (against the man), and she'd be an adulteress.

"No morality without God". Gotta love it.

Friend: "If you don't believe in God, where do you get your morality."

Me: "From my parents, culture, the law, and an adherence to reason and an innate desire to do good, or at least avoid doing bad if I can help it."

Friend: "Pshaw! That just means you make up your morals as you go along! Whatever you decide is right is right! That means that whatever Charles Manson decides is right is also right, to him!"

Me: " To him, yes. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Where do you get your "objective" morals?"

Friend: "The Bible, of course."

Me: "Have you ever read the Bible?

Friend: "No, not really, just parts of it."

Me: "Uh, wut?"

Almost verbatim.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Same-same here. You point out the utter shit in the Bible and they say, "Nobody believes that anymore." Right. Cherry picking is fine when your god is purely in your head.

[Hermit]

In 1969, in USN boot camp, I saw the first person I was ever aware of as having a phobia about guns. He was in my "company" and was ahead of me as we lined up for the rifle range. He kept muttering "nobody said anything about guns" over and over. When he got to the head of the line and they handed him a .22 rifle he simply turned and ran. Fought his way out of the building and took off. We never saw him again.

What a crafty way of bulldozing past catch 22. Much better than trying to row across the Mediterranean Sea in an inflatable.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In 1969, in USN boot camp, I saw the first person I was ever aware of as having a phobia about guns. He was in my "company" and was ahead of me as we lined up for the rifle range. He kept muttering "nobody said anything about guns" over and over. When he got to the head of the line and they handed him a .22 rifle he simply turned and ran. Fought his way out of the building and took off. We never saw him again.

What a crafty way of bulldozing past catch 22. Much better than trying to row across the Mediterranean Sea in an inflatable.

Very crafty, I think. He appeared to have broken an arm in his fight with the gunner's mates. He was well and truly flipped out or a masterful actor at 19.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think it's all a little wired, but I don't know if it is, or if it's just because I'm not used to American news. The reporter seems to be talking about it as if it's a happy story - and getting her to pose with the shotgun - what the fuck is that about?

People want to see the gun.

I've also read enough British "news" reports to know to an absolute certainty that the arrogance and conceit expressed by Brits that their population does not salivate just as much as Americans for gratuitous and sensational stories of this kind. There is a kind of cognitive dissonance on this matter, and perhaps its an extension of British class-based pomposity that considers Americans and others to be vulgar and lower class by definition.

The tabloids print all kinds of shit but we certainly don't have that kind of thing on TV.

You don't have that kind of thing on TV? You're kidding right? This was a report about home invasion and defensive killing on local news. If that happened in the United Kingdom, nobody would report on it? All hush hush?

But it's probably just because I'm not used to your news channels -

What do you mean "our" local news channels? Don't you blokes have 200-300 different channels, and hundreds of "local news channels" reporting just about everything that happens? Or, do you have a filtered, controlled news service that makes sure that the vulgar, provincial stuff is kept neatly under the rug, where it belongs?

I was assuming your abc was something like our bbc, but the other TV report from newschannel4 seemed a lot more normal to me i.e. less enthusiastic about someone being dead, and more considerate of how the poor woman was feeling.

You're kidding, right?

I read the news article at the top of the thread, and there was no joy expressed at someone being dead. There was relief expressed that the woman and her child weren't hurt, and there were quotes from the cops that what she did was legal and that no charges would be dropped, but if you'd care to highlight or quote the part where you see any enthusiasm that someone died, feel free. Methinks you are reading something into it that you want to see.

And considerate about how the poor woman was feeling - the article was about how the woman was feeling. She was quoted about her feelings and her motivations, she was protecting her child and she was very afraid, not only of her child being harmed but also of hurting someone else. She was reluctant to harm someone, but the monster was coming after her and her baby.

As for abc vs bbc - ABC is one of the major "networks." There are hundreds of ABC affiliate organizations that are relatively autonomous and regional - ABC in New York, ABC in Philadelphia, ABC in Tampa, ABC in Miami, etc., all will have different news anchors so that that they can cover the local goings on in greater depth. Chicago residents see more Chicago news, for example, and everyone gets national news.

There are several of these "networks" such as NBC and CBS, and Fox. All of them have national/international components, and all have local affiliates in every region across the country. They generally mix regular programming with news only part of the time. These stations are generally also broadcast in "television" and not just by cable or satellite signals. Other local stations broadcast on television signals include PBS (which has news and other programming), and usually 2 to 5 other such channels like UPN and WPIX and a host of other local only television stations. These can all be viewed for free if someone has a television with antennae.

In addition to that, we have hundreds of channels broadcast on cable and/or satellite, or fiber optics, etc. Many of these are partly news and many of them are 24-7 news: CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox Business, ABCNews Now, Bloomberg Television, CNBC World, CNN International, Euronews, BBCAmerica, and televising our government live, we have CSPAN, CSPAN-2, the Pentagon Channel, Current TV...and more....and more....

I mean - yes - you can see anything on American TV. We, of course, are considered, by many Europeans, as having a completely controlled news system where we are brainwashed by what the government wants us to hear. You blokes, of course, watch, BBC-1, BBC-2, BBC-3, BBC-4, BBC-5.....BBC-n, and get the straight scoop. But, of course, you'd never have "something like that" on TV....

[Tyrannical]

Did anyone catch that the 18 year old's deceased husband she had been married to for two years was in his mid 50's?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Did anyone catch that the 18 year old's deceased husband she had been married to for two years was in his mid 50's?

Around page 2, I think.

[PsychoSerenity]

You don't have that kind of thing on TV? You're kidding right? This was a report about home invasion and defensive killing on local news. If that happened in the United Kingdom, nobody would report on it? All hush hush?

Of course it would be reported, I'm just saying there's a huge difference between the way it was reported in the abc video report, getting her to pose with the shotgun with the subtitle "MAKE MY DAY - PISTOL PACKING MAMA" while the reporter enthusiastically says "18 year old Sarah McKinley killed a man!", and the way it was reported in the newschannel4 video, which was more like what I'd expect.

[MrJonno]

Its perfectly reasonable to be extremely uncomfortable around any guns including those holstered by the police. The fact that someone can draw a gun and shoot you dead in the blink of an eye is for most people one of the few times someone will be that close to death. Sticking your head out of a window and looking down 10 stories is also a completely sensible reason to be afraid and something people will generally avoid if they can.

Its probably a little more unusual if someone started feeling like that if they were looking at a gun in musuem that was locked up, highly likely not to be functional and presumably unloaded

If you go to a British airport and I assume most others while you won't have people running screaming from armed police you generally find most people give them a very wide birth. Even in a crowded airport where they is a shortage of space to even sit down on the floor you will often see a 10 metre exclusion radius around anyone with a gun

[Coito ergo sum]

You don't have that kind of thing on TV? You're kidding right? This was a report about home invasion and defensive killing on local news. If that happened in the United Kingdom, nobody would report on it? All hush hush?

Of course it would be reported, I'm just saying there's a huge difference between the way it was reported in the abc video report, getting her to pose with the shotgun with the subtitle "MAKE MY DAY - PISTOL PACKING MAMA" while the reporter enthusiastically says "18 year old Sarah McKinley killed a man!", and the way it was reported in the newschannel4 video, which was more like what I'd expect.

it's that "enthusiasm" that I think you're reading a bit into.

Anyway, I think if you take a look at your sensationalized tabloid news reporting, you'll find the same kind "snappy headlines" being use.

I realize that many Brits like to adopt the pompous "we're better than that" high ground, but this is ridiculous.

Let's play "spot the enthusiasm." Here' is the text of the article in the OP:

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.
Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.
On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.
As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.
McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.
"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"
The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.
"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.
When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.
"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.
Stewart soon turned himself in to police.
McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.
"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."

Wow - looks like bloodlust.

Was there some other source of "enthusiasm" that you found, or were you just, as I said, reading into it to see what you wanted to see?

[Bella Fortuna]

The British are all about sensationalist headlines! Look at this!!:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Coito ergo sum]

Its perfectly reasonable to be extremely uncomfortable around any guns including those holstered by the police.

I disagree. Being "around" guns is not inherently dangerous, just like being "extremely uncomfortable" around knives or baseball bats would be a tad unreasonable.

The fact that someone can draw a gun and shoot you dead in the blink of an eye is for most people one of the few times someone will be that close to death.

Being in the same room with a gun is not being close to death.

Sticking your head out of a window and looking down 10 stories is also a completely sensible reason to be afraid and something people will generally avoid if they can.

That too is an irrational fear. One can't fall by merely sticking one's head out the window. It's rational to fear climbing out that window or leaning out the window - but sticking one's head out? What are you afraid of? That a strong wind will kick up and blow you out the window? That your wife will shove you out? Seems to me that the only risk of harm comes from virtually impossible scenarios, which would seem to me to be as irrational as being afraid because a black man is coming towards you on a city street.

Its probably a little more unusual if someone started feeling like that if they were looking at a gun in musuem that was locked up, highly likely not to be functional and presumably unloaded

They're highly likely to be functional. But, that is just one example.

If you go to a British airport and I assume most others while you won't have people running screaming from armed police you generally find most people give them a very wide birth. Even in a crowded airport where they is a shortage of space to even sit down on the floor you will often see a 10 metre exclusion radius around anyone with a gun

Generally, that's because people don't want to crowd police officers, whether they have a gun or not. But, if the fear is that the English police officer at Heathrow is going to haul off and shoot you because you're in the airport near him, then I would count that as irrational (because there doesn't seem to me to be a rational basis for that expectation).

[maiforpeace]

The British are all about sensationalist headlines! Look at this!!:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Nor do we tap phones to get those headlines.