Xenomancers wrote: where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you.
That isn't how it works. You can't just grab a young man at random, and get him to die for you by promising him virgins in the afterlife, that would be stupid. You might have noticed that other extreme groups, such as Nazi's, also manage to recruit young men (skin heads and such), without any promise of virgins.
These ideologies don't choose people and trick them into doing stuff, the people choose the ideology. Most people just pick and choose the parts of their religion that suit them anyway. The kind of people who choose extremism are not characteristically religious adherents. Usually they are young men who are already angry and frustrated, looking for some way to externalize their failures, and feel important. Ideas like "99 Virgins" or "The master race" exist because these people need to feel that they are superior in some way. It is their way of telling themselves they are better than the people they hate, even though their real lives and achievements would suggest otherwise.
You can try blaming the religion, but the fact is, the vast majority of Muslims don't become extremists. So firstly it doesn't add up, and secondly it causes you to overlook more important factors that push people towards violent ideologies.
Just the general disconnect from the same part of the population that claims that a plastic sign is ineffective at stopping gun violence because anybody who wants to kill you is just going to ignore the sign anyway, and which is now claiming that the only thing stopping the wholesale rape of our women and daughters is a plastic sign on the bathroom door.
Either "gun/penis free zones" work, or they don't.
I am okay with gun carrying being prohibited in places where alcohol is the majority of the business income, that's the way it is handled in Oklahoma.
Just the general disconnect from the same part of the population that claims that a plastic sign is ineffective at stopping gun violence because anybody who wants to kill you is just going to ignore the sign anyway, and which is now claiming that the only thing stopping the wholesale rape of our women and daughters is a plastic sign on the bathroom door.
Either "gun/penis free zones" work, or they don't.
I am okay with gun carrying being prohibited in places where alcohol is the majority of the business income, that's the way it is handled in Oklahoma.
Well thats a bit of a separate thread (I think you know I agree with you on that).
The gun free thing is different in that these are known areas where time matters. Typically mass shootings stop when the shooter is confronted by police or an armed person-often the BG retreats and offs himself.
It's probably about the limit of capacity taking into account the need to hand load the magazine, the spring strength for returning the rounds to the mouth, and the weight and size of loaded magazines.
The Bren Gun had a 30 round magazine and it fed from above the gun so gravity helped.
Modern assault rifles firing lower calibre ammunition seem to have standardised on about 30 rounds.
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.
Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.
Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.
I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.
In the sense that when you write laws you often create weird arbitrary distinction, yes. But, there's a reason that the US military doesn't equip the average soldier with M14s for combat anymore. The M-16 is a more efficient battlefield weapon. Yes I know the AR-15 isn't exactly the same as the M-16, but it's close enough especially if you throw on enough aftermarket modification.
Wrong again, the move away from the M14 had nothing to do with M-16s being 'a more efficient battlefield weapon' and everything to do with the logistics of keeping a troop supplied with a basic load of ammo. 5.56 is lighter and you get a lot more rounds for the volume and weight. When it comes to transporting supplies, especially by air/rotary wing as we were doing in Vietnam, but even by ground transport, that statrs to make a difference. When you have to hump the weight, a basic load of 5.56 gives you more shots than the basic load of 7.62 did.
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.
Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.
Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.
I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.
According to the sources, only 1 of those was stopped by a civilian. 1 was on-duty police, 1 was a guard, 2 were off duty-cops (not civilians), and 1 was a suicide, with no civilian opening fire.
Xenomancers wrote: It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.
No it isn't worth mentioning, as it has very little to do with why young men become radicals. The only reason you might bring it up, at all, is if you were some kind of reactionary bigot trying to demonize a religion that you know nothing about, in a situation that you clearly have a very limited understanding of. The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you. I am an atheist BTW and am pretty much opposed to all religions but Islam is an especially messed up religion that actually commands violence on others and offers you a reward for it.
You're either moving the goalposts or making a strawman. Either way you're not doing yourself any favours.
Actually I did nothing of the sort. I put forth an argument that Islamic's kill infidels because their holy book grants them virgins in heaven for doing so (their holy book actually says this). I was then called an ignorant bigot and some sort of contrast was made between Islam and Christianity that didn't address the point I was making. I restated my point by asking a question that still hasn't been addressed. Now another has stepped in an claimed I'm making a logical fallacy.
Smacks said that:
Smacks wrote: The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
You responded with:
Xenomancers wrote: Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians?
The claim was never that the Bible contains such passages, only that it contains "violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals". Responding to that with a request for something that has never been claimed is a Strawman, demanding such examples to accept the similarity between Islam and Christianity on this point is moving the goalposts. Either way it's a logical fallacy.
The point I was making was that the bible does not contain passages that promise virgins in paradise for martyrdom and is therefore insufficient as a comparison. The bible might be homophobic but it is generally not commanding holywar or promising virgins for your self sacrifice. Both religions are morally reprehensible but it should be clear to anyone which is more likely to induce suicide killings.
Kilkrazy wrote: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/man-beheaded-co-worker-moore-oklahoma-workplace-attack-police-n212396
Gunman shot by a civilian.
Actually, in that one the gunman wasn't a gunman, he only had a knife. Easier to fight/escape a man with a knife than a man with an AR 15, so probably not relevant.
Well, quibbling about the number is moving the goalposts - I was wrong when I said no civilian ever stopped a mass shooting. I forgot about that Uber driver thing pretty recently, and that alone was enough to make me wrong.
It doesn't change my beliefs that you can't functionally stop a mass shooting event, either from restricting gun ownership or from arming the population any further. There is no political will on one hand, and a lack of efficacy on the other (not to mention that a hypothetical massive increase in people carrying guns will likely result in more incidental deaths than the mass shootings the goal is to stop).
I don't really know what the answer is, but it's not either of those things.
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
There aren't a ton of people walking around with weapons on a military base in peacetime in the US. Soldiers here do not carry sidearms as a matter of course. The closest armed personnel are probably security guards at the gates, same as any large office complex.
Ouze wrote: Well, quibbling about the number is moving the goalposts - I was wrong when I said no civilian ever stopped a mass shooting. I forgot about that Uber driver thing pretty recently, and that alone was enough to make me wrong.
It doesn't change my beliefs that you can't functionally stop a mass shooting event, either from restricting gun ownership or from arming the population any further. There is no political will on one hand, and a lack of efficacy on the other (not to mention that a hypothetical massive increase in people carrying guns will likely result in more incidental deaths than the mass shootings the goal is to stop).
I don't really know what the answer is, but it's not either of those things.
Civilians successfully intervening seems to be the exception, rather than the norm. That's my conclusion from these articles.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
There aren't a ton of people walking around with weapons on a military base in peacetime in the US. Soldiers here do not carry sidearms as a matter of course. The closest armed personnel are probably security guards at the gates, same as any large office complex.
I thought you guys were on high alert at sensitive areas and military bases, because of 9/11, the ISIL threat, and so on...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure only the MPs walk around a military base actually carrying a weapon. Which would mean that even on an army base, the majority of the targets would be unarmed from the shooter's perspective.
Someone suddenly opening fire is a chaotic situation. Even for trained soldiers/police officers, reactions take time, and sadly that time is usually where most victims lose their lives.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, the important thing is the rate of mass shootings per year and the comparative rate of defence against such by civilians.
Of course people also carry guns to defend against individual crime, so it's not just about stopping mass shootings.
I think that's the best anyone can say about it. I'd be quite interested to hear from anyone who actually worked as club bouncer, on how they'd feel about letting patrons in with guns. My suspicion, based on the number of drunken fights I've seen outside clubs, is that letting people in with guns would cause more problems than it solves. The chance of a terror attack is quite small, compared to the probability of someone having too much to drink and acting like a douche, which is almost a certainty.
Even in the US most people don't go about in a state of combat vigilance for the reason that, while shootings are much more common than in Europe, they still are very uncommon.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
It's against regulations to carry personal arms while on base. The soldiers that Hassan shot were all unarmed.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, the important thing is the rate of mass shootings per year and the comparative rate of defence against such by civilians.
Of course people also carry guns to defend against individual crime, so it's not just about stopping mass shootings.
I think that's the best anyone can say about it. I'd be quite interested to hear from anyone who actually worked as club bouncer, on how they'd feel about letting patrons in with guns. My suspicion, based on the number of drunken fights I've seen outside clubs, is that letting people in with guns would cause more problems than it solves. The chance of a terror attack is quite small, compared to the probability of someone having too much to drink and acting like a douche, which is almost a certainty.
Most crimes are fuelled by alcohol, so guns + booze is never a good idea.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
It's against regulations to carry personal arms while on base. The soldiers that Hassan shot were all unarmed.
Is that just for US based bases? I'd assume that the opposite was the case for a US base in Iraq.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, the important thing is the rate of mass shootings per year and the comparative rate of defence against such by civilians.
Of course people also carry guns to defend against individual crime, so it's not just about stopping mass shootings.
I think that's the best anyone can say about it. I'd be quite interested to hear from anyone who actually worked as club bouncer, on how they'd feel about letting patrons in with guns. My suspicion, based on the number of drunken fights I've seen outside clubs, is that letting people in with guns would cause more problems than it solves. The chance of a terror attack is quite small, compared to the probability of someone having too much to drink and acting like a douche, which is almost a certainty.
Yeah.. guns and alcohol dont mix.
but as much as i would like every bar and club to have metal detectors and Disneyland bag checks, i dont think its financially possible. Otherwise training security to do such and pay them more.
(im fine with people owning guns all day everyday. just not free to carry it anywhere they want. especially in specific types of places like a super packed low light room full of people)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure only the MPs walk around a military base actually carrying a weapon. Which would mean that even on an army base, the majority of the targets would be unarmed from the shooter's perspective.
Someone suddenly opening fire is a chaotic situation. Even for trained soldiers/police officers, reactions take time, and sadly that time is usually where most victims lose their lives.
Your last sentence is a point I was making in another thread. Even a highly trained shooter would struggle to hit a target if there's tons of innocent civilians running through his or her line of fire.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
No. Hassan specifically chose the location because no one had their weapons there.
Ouze wrote: Well, quibbling about the number is moving the goalposts - I was wrong when I said no civilian ever stopped a mass shooting. I forgot about that Uber driver thing pretty recently, and that alone was enough to make me wrong.
It doesn't change my beliefs that you can't functionally stop a mass shooting event, either from restricting gun ownership or from arming the population any further. There is no political will on one hand, and a lack of efficacy on the other (not to mention that a hypothetical massive increase in people carrying guns will likely result in more incidental deaths than the mass shootings the goal is to stop).
I don't really know what the answer is, but it's not either of those things.
I wasn't trying to make the point that armed citizens will always stop a mass shooting, just that armed citizens can and have stopped mass shootings.
I don't see a practical difference between armed off duty cops and armed citizens.
In a lot of states it's fairly easy for any law abiding citizen to obtain firearms so it's not like there's much more that can be done in those states to increase the amount of armed citizens. People who are legally armed should be allowed to carry in any public place and in any private place that doesn't post no carry signs. I don't see the logic in the state trusting you to own a gun and then prohibiting you from carrying it in a bunch of places. Once you're armed the state can't really stop you from carrying wherever you want anyway and anyone willing to follow those laws wouldn't be a problem if they didn't exist and anyone who won't follow them would still be a problem if they do exist.
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.
Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.
Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.
I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.
According to the sources, only 1 of those was stopped by a civilian. 1 was on-duty police, 1 was a guard, 2 were off duty-cops (not civilians), and 1 was a suicide, with no civilian opening fire.
Off duty cops and a civilian security guard are just armed citizens. In the incident where the cops killed the shooter it happened after the shooter fled from an armed civilian.
Xenomancers wrote: It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.
No it isn't worth mentioning, as it has very little to do with why young men become radicals. The only reason you might bring it up, at all, is if you were some kind of reactionary bigot trying to demonize a religion that you know nothing about, in a situation that you clearly have a very limited understanding of. The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you. I am an atheist BTW and am pretty much opposed to all religions but Islam is an especially messed up religion that actually commands violence on others and offers you a reward for it.
You're either moving the goalposts or making a strawman. Either way you're not doing yourself any favours.
Actually I did nothing of the sort. I put forth an argument that Islamic's kill infidels because their holy book grants them virgins in heaven for doing so (their holy book actually says this). I was then called an ignorant bigot and some sort of contrast was made between Islam and Christianity that didn't address the point I was making. I restated my point by asking a question that still hasn't been addressed. Now another has stepped in an claimed I'm making a logical fallacy.
Smacks said that:
Smacks wrote: The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
You responded with:
Xenomancers wrote: Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians?
The claim was never that the Bible contains such passages, only that it contains "violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals". Responding to that with a request for something that has never been claimed is a Strawman, demanding such examples to accept the similarity between Islam and Christianity on this point is moving the goalposts. Either way it's a logical fallacy.
The point I was making was that the bible does not contain passages that promise virgins in paradise for martyrdom and is therefore insufficient as a comparison. The bible might be homophobic but it is generally not commanding holywar or promising virgins for your self sacrifice. Both religions are morally reprehensible but it should be clear to anyone which is more likely to induce suicide killings.
The Qur'an forbids suicide, actually (Sura 4, ayah 29). As do several Hadith (2:23:446, 7:71:670). And neither religion is morally reprehensible, the goal of both (and therefore the focus of most Quranic or Biblical teachings) is for its followers to lead a good and just life with compassion for others. In fact Christianity provides most of the moral and legal groundwork upon which our Western civilisation is based. How much do you even know about Islam or Christianity?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
No. Hassan specifically chose the location because no one had their weapons there.
Yeah, this is not true. He picked it because it was his workplace. After all, if he specifically chose the location because people were unarmed, he would have killed some of the many civilians that he could have and didn't. It was an act of terrorism aimed at the US military, and he had access to a workplace full of military personnel.
When he DID encounter an armed civilian LEO, he wounded her, then kicked the weapon away, left her alive, and continued his rampage.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
Spoken by someone with no knowledge of how the Military works. In my 20 years of service, I have only carried a loaded weapon, other than gate guard, once on duty, on post. That was after the 9/11 attacks. And it was not a roaming guard, it was at a designated checkpoint, which was easily accessed. Gates on most Army installations were either not manned, or non-existent up to that point except in the highest of security areas.
The Fort Hood attacks happened, because Major DB went to an area where large amounts of Soldiers were gathered for administrative purposes, opened fire, and only an MP was able to engage him, since they are the only ones on the installation who carry pistols. I started to lay out why preventing that was not possible, then the OPSEC (operational security) manager inside my head stopped me. Just believe me when I say, we have access to devastating firepower, just not daily, or on any given moment. There are measures in place to prevent access to government weapons. And then Ammo is even harder to access. We do not carry any weapons around with us, unless in training(with no ammo) or deployed to a forward zone. We do not stay armed on American soil unless certain executive actions are taken.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
No. Hassan specifically chose the location because no one had their weapons there.
No gak. All posts are gun free zones. Only folks with weapons are on duty police (either civilian security guards or military police) and folks out at a range. Otherwise all guns are locked up in arms rooms with vault type security mechanisms, and locked up within racks inside those vaults. Troopers cannot bring personal weapons on post (no one can on a federal installation, well except guys like Hassan who don't really care about the rules).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
No. Hassan specifically chose the location because no one had their weapons there.
No gak. All posts are gun free zones. Only folks with weapons are on duty police (either civilian security guards or military police) and folks out at a range. Otherwise all guns are locked up in arms rooms with vault type security mechanisms, and locked up within racks inside those vaults. Troopers cannot bring personal weapons on post (no one can on a federal installation, well except guys like Hassan who don't really care about the rules).
You beat me to it. that is the point I was trying to make, gun free zones are gun free for law abiding citizens, not criminals.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.
No. Hassan specifically chose the location because no one had their weapons there.
Yeah, this is not true. He picked it because it was his workplace. After all, if he specifically chose the location because people were unarmed, he would have killed some of the many civilians that he could have and didn't. It was an act of terrorism aimed at the US military, and he had access to a workplace full of military personnel.
When he DID encounter an armed civilian LEO, he wounded her, then kicked the weapon away, left her alive, and continued his rampage.
I don't think it was his workplace (he did not work in that building). It was a place troops went through to check all the blocks prior to deployment. A quick look at the victim list shows he did shoot civilians he encountered (some PA named Cahill got capped trying to rush him). But most of the folks there were military, hence most of his victims were military. He did specifically go for uniformed people as part of the screwed up statement he was trying to make.
EDIT: I am wrong, he may have been working in that building but was assigned to the post hospital. Sorry....
No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.
I was trying, and not succeeding, to make the point that areas where there are no guns, or areas where everybody is armed, is no guarantee against this mindless slaughter, sadly.
Ouze wrote: No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.
*not gonna get me being absolute again!
not stating thats why he selected, just stating it is a gun free zone. He selected it due to ease of access. Its that simple. The enemy typically chooses soft targets rather than hard targets. But to try to say as in the original quote that it was a military installation so we had access to weapons is a bit ridiculous.
Ouze wrote: No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.
*not gonna get me being absolute again!
No I meant the actual induction building. He specifically knew there would not be armed personnel there.
I was trying, and not succeeding, to make the point that areas where there are no guns, or areas where everybody is armed, is no guarantee against this mindless slaughter, sadly.
Such is life.
I agree that either type of zone is no guarantee that attacks will not happen. Thinking tactically though, as I would go through the planning process on an operation. ( I am methodical thanks to a life time of doing this type of planning) I would definately rather walk into an uncontested objective than a contested one. While neither one is a guarantee of success, I am of the belief that initial shots, violence of action, and speed when properly executed would lead to many deaths, what happens after the initial shock is based on the surroundings and personnel. If someone is armed, they may have a chance, assuming they are trained.
so in short, neither zone can stop the initial attack, but how long that attack goes on can be based on several factors.
redleger wrote: That is the point I was trying to make, gun free zones are gun free for law abiding citizens, not criminals.
That's a slightly fallacious distinction, given that criminals are law abiding citizens right up until they break the law. Prohibiting weapons in certain areas might not stop a gunman with a premeditated plan, but it does stop incidents that occur unplanned from escalating, and makes security easier. Those types of incident (arguments etc...) are probably a lot more common than a prepared attacker turning up.
Ouze wrote: No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.
*not gonna get me being absolute again!
No I meant the actual induction building. He specifically knew there would not be armed personnel there.
Yes he knew that. any building on post would be gun free.
redleger wrote: That is the point I was trying to make, gun free zones are gun free for law abiding citizens, not criminals.
That's a slightly fallacious distinction, given that criminals are law abiding citizens right up until they break the law. Prohibiting weapons in certain areas might not stop a gunman with a premeditated plan, but it does stop incident that occur unplanned from escalating, and makes security easier. Those types of incident (arguments etc...) are probably a lot more common than a prepared attacker turning up.
When I think of these incidents, I specifically envision planned attacks. However a sign saying an area is gun free, is no guarantee that the area is gun free, unless there are systems in place to prevent said guns from entering.
redleger wrote: That is the point I was trying to make, gun free zones are gun free for law abiding citizens, not criminals.
That's a slightly fallacious distinction, given that criminals are law abiding citizens right up until they break the law. Prohibiting weapons in certain areas might not stop a gunman with a premeditated plan, but it does stop incidents that occur unplanned from escalating, and makes security easier. Those types of incident (arguments etc...) are probably a lot more common than a prepared attacker turning up.
And yet there are not a whole lot of cases of folks legally carrying getting into arguments they allow to escalate into gun play and killing. So, those types of incidents involving folks legally carrying are pretty damed rare too.
Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.
Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...
Xenomancers wrote: It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.
No it isn't worth mentioning, as it has very little to do with why young men become radicals. The only reason you might bring it up, at all, is if you were some kind of reactionary bigot trying to demonize a religion that you know nothing about, in a situation that you clearly have a very limited understanding of. The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you. I am an atheist BTW and am pretty much opposed to all religions but Islam is an especially messed up religion that actually commands violence on others and offers you a reward for it.
You're either moving the goalposts or making a strawman. Either way you're not doing yourself any favours.
Actually I did nothing of the sort. I put forth an argument that Islamic's kill infidels because their holy book grants them virgins in heaven for doing so (their holy book actually says this). I was then called an ignorant bigot and some sort of contrast was made between Islam and Christianity that didn't address the point I was making. I restated my point by asking a question that still hasn't been addressed. Now another has stepped in an claimed I'm making a logical fallacy.
Smacks said that:
Smacks wrote: The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
You responded with:
Xenomancers wrote: Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians?
The claim was never that the Bible contains such passages, only that it contains "violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals". Responding to that with a request for something that has never been claimed is a Strawman, demanding such examples to accept the similarity between Islam and Christianity on this point is moving the goalposts. Either way it's a logical fallacy.
The point I was making was that the bible does not contain passages that promise virgins in paradise for martyrdom and is therefore insufficient as a comparison. The bible might be homophobic but it is generally not commanding holywar or promising virgins for your self sacrifice. Both religions are morally reprehensible but it should be clear to anyone which is more likely to induce suicide killings.
The Qur'an forbids suicide, actually (Sura 4, ayah 29). As do several Hadith (2:23:446, 7:71:670). And neither religion is morally reprehensible, the goal of both (and therefore the focus of most Quranic or Biblical teachings) is for its followers to lead a good and just life with compassion for others. In fact Christianity provides most of the moral and legal groundwork upon which our Western civilisation is based. How much do you even know about Islam or Christianity?
The Quran forbids suicide but codons martyrdom. Both religions are easily morally reprehensible unless of course you ignore the parts that are immoral. Both are anti gay, anti woman, pro slavery, and pro murder in the name of god. Islam just seems more content to reward you with virgins. You can cherry pick the parts we as westerners consider moral and attribute it to the bible but then how do you justify everything else we consider immoral coming from the same book? How much do you really need to know about a religion to be able to know it's gak? A few passages from ether book supporting murder, anti woman, anti gay, or pro slavery - that's enough for me.
Ouze wrote: No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.
*not gonna get me being absolute again!
Not trying to nitpick but there was the whole giant spread sheet of mass murder research that was put together by the Sandy Hook shooter because he allegedly wanted to commit bigger shooting with more deaths than had been done previously.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.
Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...
I prefer laws that prohibit you from drinking while carrying but let you carry in places that serve alcohol. If I'm going to a restaurant/bar and I want to carry then I need to abstain from drinking. Responsible people are going to obey that law, just like they don't drink and drive.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.
Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...
Virginia permits them in bars. You're not allowed to drink while carrying, though.
Hasn't been an issue, and we have extremely lax permit requirements.
Ouze wrote: No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.
*not gonna get me being absolute again!
Not trying to nitpick but there was the whole giant spread sheet of mass murder research that was put together by the Sandy Hook shooter because he allegedly wanted to commit bigger shooting with more deaths than had been done previously.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.
Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...
I prefer laws that prohibit you from drinking while carrying but let you carry in places that serve alcohol. If I'm going to a restaurant/bar and I want to carry then I need to abstain from drinking. Responsible people are going to obey that law, just like they don't drink and drive.
If you are not going to drink, then you don't have much reason to be in a bar. Or at least that would be the logic behind these kind of laws.
I suspect Texas is similar to Oklahoma in that the law doesn't state you cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol and instead states that you cannot carry on a place where the principal business is alcohol sales. The basic rule is that if less than 50% of sales are food, then you cannot carry there. That means that it's okay to carry into all your basic restaurants that serve alcohol.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.
Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...
Virginia permits them in bars. You're not allowed to drink while carrying, though.
Hasn't been an issue, and we have extremely lax permit requirements.
I would think most people that can legally purchase and carry firearms will also be able to legally purchase alcohol in most states so if they're stupid enough to mix the two together they don't need to go to a bar/restaurant to do it. And if they're responsible enough to stay sober when they're armed it really doesn't matter where they go armed.
Ouze wrote: No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.
*not gonna get me being absolute again!
Not trying to nitpick but there was the whole giant spread sheet of mass murder research that was put together by the Sandy Hook shooter because he allegedly wanted to commit bigger shooting with more deaths than had been done previously.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.
Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...
I prefer laws that prohibit you from drinking while carrying but let you carry in places that serve alcohol. If I'm going to a restaurant/bar and I want to carry then I need to abstain from drinking. Responsible people are going to obey that law, just like they don't drink and drive.
If you are not going to drink, then you don't have much reason to be in a bar. Or at least that would be the logic behind these kind of laws.
I suspect Texas is similar to Oklahoma in that the law doesn't state you cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol and instead states that you cannot carry on a place where the principal business is alcohol sales. The basic rule is that if less than 50% of sales are food, then you cannot carry there. That means that it's okay to carry into all your basic restaurants that serve alcohol.
If my friends want to go to a bar or if my family wants to go to a place where my wife/relatives can have a drink with dinner it makes sense for me to be able to accompany them and just stay sober if I'm carrying. This is no different than requiring people to stay sober if they want to be able to legally drive home.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.
Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...
Virginia permits them in bars. You're not allowed to drink while carrying, though.
Hasn't been an issue, and we have extremely lax permit requirements.
I could go with that, although I prefer the Texas version.
Boy, a lot of the news sites reporting on this seem to keep mentioning a time he saw some gay men making out in front of his family, and imply that was the reason he went on a shooting spree.
That seems like the dumbest reasoning since they blamed Benghazi on that ridiculous youtube video.
We may not ever know why he did it, exactly, but it seems like they're trying to cover up a more likely terrorism connection by blaming it on him seeing a couple dudes making out.
Truth is, there is no excuse, and anyone who makes an excuse for him is probably not hindered by the burden of individual responsibility. The news is so full of gak that I can't even watch it anymore. It's almost like there is a filter all new goes through, gets cleared, then it can be said. Similar to Public Affairs any time a Soldier wants to talk on the record. (hers your script, don' t deviate, make sure you mention this or that, don't say this or that)
He committed a heinous hate crime/ domestic terrorism/ terrorism. He gets remanded with no bail, goes to trial, gets the death penalty, and we remove his ability to breed from the face of this earth.
Smacks wrote: I think this all started with Col. Dash saying: "Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are".
I think we can all agree that that isn't always going to be practical (or even sensible).
Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.
I think it's a bit illogical for the state to tell people we trust you to own and carry guns but we don't want you to do it in these particular places. I think it's a false distinction to trust a citizen with a gun if they're standing in one place but not trust them with a gun if they're standing someplace else.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Boy, a lot of the news sites reporting on this seem to keep mentioning a time he saw some gay men making out in front of his family, and imply that was the reason he went on a shooting spree.
That seems like the dumbest reasoning since they blamed Benghazi on that ridiculous youtube video.
We may not ever know why he did it, exactly, but it seems like they're trying to cover up a more likely terrorism connection by blaming it on him seeing a couple dudes making out.
Him calling 911 and saying he followed ISIL pretty much says why he did it.
redleger wrote: Truth is, there is no excuse, and anyone who makes an excuse for him is probably not hindered by the burden of individual responsibility. The news is so full of gak that I can't even watch it anymore. It's almost like there is a filter all new goes through, gets cleared, then it can be said. Similar to Public Affairs any time a Soldier wants to talk on the record. (hers your script, don' t deviate, make sure you mention this or that, don't say this or that)
He committed a heinous hate crime/ domestic terrorism/ terrorism. He gets remanded with no bail, goes to trial, gets the death penalty, and we remove his ability to breed from the face of this earth.
I think it's more important to permanently remove him from the face of the earth than it is to remove his ability to breed. It's not like becoming a mass murdering zealot is an inherited trait.
Smacks wrote: I think this all started with Col. Dash saying: "Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are".
I think we can all agree that that isn't always going to be practical (or even sensible).
Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.
I think it's a bit illogical for the state to tell people we trust you to own and carry guns but we don't want you to do it in these particular places. I think it's a false distinction to trust a citizen with a gun if they're standing in one place but not trust them with a gun if they're standing someplace else.
I can agree with the private property issue, but the way I see it, if someone is breaking into your house and happens to have a weapon, I don't think your personal issues with fire arms are of any concern of his. If I wanna come over to your hosue for dinner with my wife, Ill leave it in the trunk. Your house, your rules. Its your castle after all. If you serve the public however, I think its silly to expect everyone to disarm as they enter your store. Once again, when that guy comes in to rob you, I don't think your gun free zone sign does anything but let him know he probably will have free reign of the place.
feeder wrote: So, what facts are known about this event?
1. US-born citizen committed the attack with legally obtained firearms.
2. Radicalised via the internet. Is there any indication he had travelled to the ME for training or other support?
3. Chosen target based on attacker's personal extreme homophobia.
If the above facts are true then no amount of "immigrant banning" or "gun control" would have stopped this particular attack.
I think this is the physical manifestation of one person's extreme frustration and hatred.
A terror attack requires a political end. What is the political end of this attack?
Agree on all, except if you commit an act that causes terror, and claim to be doing so in the name of a extremest group, then that links you to the group. therefore it is terror related. If I go out and run over someone, all the headline says is Soldier runs over this person, not SSG (name redacted for opsec) runs over this person. I am associated with my group. The group therefore becomes associated with me. I am an individual, but all anyone sees is Army guy does bad thing.
Smacks wrote: I think this all started with Col. Dash saying: "Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are".
I think we can all agree that that isn't always going to be practical (or even sensible).
Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.
I think it's a bit illogical for the state to tell people we trust you to own and carry guns but we don't want you to do it in these particular places. I think it's a false distinction to trust a citizen with a gun if they're standing in one place but not trust them with a gun if they're standing someplace else.
I can agree with the private property issue, but the way I see it, if someone is breaking into your house and happens to have a weapon, I don't think your personal issues with fire arms are of any concern of his. If I wanna come over to your hosue for dinner with my wife, Ill leave it in the trunk. Your house, your rules. Its your castle after all. If you serve the public however, I think its silly to expect everyone to disarm as they enter your store. Once again, when that guy comes in to rob you, I don't think your gun free zone sign does anything but let him know he probably will have free reign of the place.
I don't have an issue with treating private property the same whether it's a residence or a place of business. If that business really doesn't want to do business with armed citizens I can just not do business there or not carry when I go there. I don't think posting or not posting no gun signs is going to make a big difference in whether or not criminals try to rob a business.
There are plenty of states that have high firearm ownership rates and break ins and robberies still happen there. We had a few break in in my neighborhood this month and most of the neighbors I know are armed. Seems to me that breaking into a house to steal a tv or whatever isn't worth the risk of getting shot but if criminals were smart they probably wouldn't be doing break ins in the first place.
Ouze- there have been many cases were the shooter specifically targeted gun free zones. The Theater shooter specifically mentioned he picked that particular theater because it was the only one of the 7 local theaters that had an anti-gun policy. Its also a bit daft not to notice the direct correlation between mass shootings and gun free zones. That's where they happen, almost every time. To say otherwise is ignoring the obvious.
The military is death on carrying personal weapons on base although that is slowly changing. Even if you have a concealed carry permit, as soon as you drive onto federal property you are committing a crime if you have a gun in your car despite it being perfectly legal a few feet away. I don't know the Army's policy on this but in the AF that is changing to be the base commander's prerogative My unit is on an army base though so even though our HQ's base is cool with it, the base I am on is not and we have to obey their rules. Not that it really stops people. Concealed carry people aren't carrying massive armories in their car so a hidden hold out pistol isn't uncommon inside vehicles. No one I know of carries them on their person however. Kind of defeats the purpose of having a permit if you cant have it on hand for 90% of your driving to and from work.
feeder wrote: So, what facts are known about this event?
1. US-born citizen committed the attack with legally obtained firearms.
2. Radicalised via the internet. Is there any indication he had travelled to the ME for training or other support?
3. Chosen target based on attacker's personal extreme homophobia.
If the above facts are true then no amount of "immigrant banning" or "gun control" would have stopped this particular attack.
I think this is the physical manifestation of one person's extreme frustration and hatred.
A terror attack requires a political end. What is the political end of this attack?
The attacker called 911 specifically to mention he wanted to be associated with ISIS/ISIL and even if there is no evidence of a stronger connection than that, it still creates a lot of publicity for ISIS and associates it with killing homosexuals in a western country which is good propaganda for them in their part of the world. The publicity is enough of a political benefit to make it terrorist attack in my opinion.
Xenomancers wrote: How much do you really need to know about a religion to be able to know it's gak? A few passages from ether book supporting murder, anti woman, anti gay, or pro slavery - that's enough for me.
Earlier it seemed like you didn't want to make this needlessly about guns, but now it seems like are trying to make it about religion.
The guy was an angry, unstable, wife beating, homophobe, who's wife had left him. He probably had a tiny penis too. His religion is almost incidental. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools? Anders Breivik was diametrically opposed to radical Islam. These people are just twisted.
Smacks wrote: I think this all started with Col. Dash saying: "Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are".
I think we can all agree that that isn't always going to be practical (or even sensible).
Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.
I think it's a bit illogical for the state to tell people we trust you to own and carry guns but we don't want you to do it in these particular places. I think it's a false distinction to trust a citizen with a gun if they're standing in one place but not trust them with a gun if they're standing someplace else.
I can agree with the private property issue, but the way I see it, if someone is breaking into your house and happens to have a weapon, I don't think your personal issues with fire arms are of any concern of his. If I wanna come over to your hosue for dinner with my wife, Ill leave it in the trunk. Your house, your rules. Its your castle after all. If you serve the public however, I think its silly to expect everyone to disarm as they enter your store. Once again, when that guy comes in to rob you, I don't think your gun free zone sign does anything but let him know he probably will have free reign of the place.
I don't have an issue with treating private property the same whether it's a residence or a place of business. If that business really doesn't want to do business with armed citizens I can just not do business there or not carry when I go there. I don't think posting or not posting no gun signs is going to make a big difference in whether or not criminals try to rob a business.
There are plenty of states that have high firearm ownership rates and break ins and robberies still happen there. We had a few break in in my neighborhood this month and most of the neighbors I know are armed. Seems to me that breaking into a house to steal a tv or whatever isn't worth the risk of getting shot but if criminals were smart they probably wouldn't be doing break ins in the first place.
Not being omnipotent, I can not speak for criminals so much as, based on my level of intelligence, and ability to plan operations, I would most definately hit "gun free zones" first. This is obviously just me talking. I am not saying everyone thinks this way, but if I was omnipotent, I think the answer to this would surprise you.
and yes, if they didn't want me to carry in the store, I have a choice to vote with my dollar. I can agree with that. I don't need to spend money in there anyway. However I am speaking from the other side of the table. I am a law abiding citizen, and always will be, but if I didn't want to be, soft targets would be my first targets.
Xenomancers wrote: How much do you really need to know about a religion to be able to know it's gak? A few passages from ether book supporting murder, anti woman, anti gay, or pro slavery - that's enough for me.
Earlier it seemed like you didn't want to make this needlessly about guns, but it now it seems like are trying to make it about religion.
The guy was an angry, unstable, wife beating, homophobe, who's wife had left him. He probably had a tiny penis too. His religion is almost incidental. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools? Anders Breivik was diametrically opposed to radical Islam. These people are just twisted.
He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that? wife beating, check homophobe, check His religion is almost incidental. unless you disagree with the ISIL interpretation of it of course then its dying time for you. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools-you mean like the Beslan school? check
Smacks wrote: I think this all started with Col. Dash saying: "Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are".
I think we can all agree that that isn't always going to be practical (or even sensible).
Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.
I think it's a bit illogical for the state to tell people we trust you to own and carry guns but we don't want you to do it in these particular places. I think it's a false distinction to trust a citizen with a gun if they're standing in one place but not trust them with a gun if they're standing someplace else.
I can agree with the private property issue, but the way I see it, if someone is breaking into your house and happens to have a weapon, I don't think your personal issues with fire arms are of any concern of his. If I wanna come over to your hosue for dinner with my wife, Ill leave it in the trunk. Your house, your rules. Its your castle after all. If you serve the public however, I think its silly to expect everyone to disarm as they enter your store. Once again, when that guy comes in to rob you, I don't think your gun free zone sign does anything but let him know he probably will have free reign of the place.
I don't have an issue with treating private property the same whether it's a residence or a place of business. If that business really doesn't want to do business with armed citizens I can just not do business there or not carry when I go there. I don't think posting or not posting no gun signs is going to make a big difference in whether or not criminals try to rob a business.
There are plenty of states that have high firearm ownership rates and break ins and robberies still happen there. We had a few break in in my neighborhood this month and most of the neighbors I know are armed. Seems to me that breaking into a house to steal a tv or whatever isn't worth the risk of getting shot but if criminals were smart they probably wouldn't be doing break ins in the first place.
Not being omnipotent, I can not speak for criminals so much as, based on my level of intelligence, and ability to plan operations, I would most definately hit "gun free zones" first. This is obviously just me talking. I am not saying everyone thinks this way, but if I was omnipotent, I think the answer to this would surprise you.
and yes, if they didn't want me to carry in the store, I have a choice to vote with my dollar. I can agree with that. I don't need to spend money in there anyway. However I am speaking from the other side of the table. I am a law abiding citizen, and always will be, but if I didn't want to be, soft targets would be my first targets.
I think we agree that criminals aren't going to follow the law or posted signs so it's not going to stop them if they want to attack a gun free place. I'm supportive of giving people the freedom to decide if they want their private business to be a gun free zone even if that makes it more attractive for criminals. Soft targets are always going to be vulnerable and as long as we want to be a free and open society we're going to have plenty of soft targets everywhere. Thankfully the vast majority of people aren't ever going to even attempt to commit mass murder at one of those soft targets.
If you are not going to drink, then you don't have much reason to be in a bar.
Aside from working there, you mean?
Still plenty of reasons.
If you continue to ignore the rest of a quoted post just so you can make random points, you light as well stop responding to me and waste the time of everyone that has to read your pointless replies.
Xenomancers wrote: How much do you really need to know about a religion to be able to know it's gak? A few passages from ether book supporting murder, anti woman, anti gay, or pro slavery - that's enough for me.
Earlier it seemed like you didn't want to make this needlessly about guns, but it now it seems like are trying to make it about religion.
The guy was an angry, unstable, wife beating, homophobe, who's wife had left him. He probably had a tiny penis too. His religion is almost incidental. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools? Anders Breivik was diametrically opposed to radical Islam. These people are just twisted.
He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that?
wife beating, check
homophobe, check
His religion is almost incidental. unless you disagree with the ISIL interpretation of it of course then its dying time for you.
How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools-you mean like the Beslan school? check
Was he ever convicted of beating his first wife? A domestic violence conviction should have prevented him from owning guns in Florida.
Xenomancers wrote: How much do you really need to know about a religion to be able to know it's gak? A few passages from ether book supporting murder, anti woman, anti gay, or pro slavery - that's enough for me.
Earlier it seemed like you didn't want to make this needlessly about guns, but it now it seems like are trying to make it about religion.
The guy was an angry, unstable, wife beating, homophobe, who's wife had left him. He probably had a tiny penis too. His religion is almost incidental. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools? Anders Breivik was diametrically opposed to radical Islam. These people are just twisted.
He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that? wife beating, check homophobe, check His religion is almost incidental. unless you disagree with the ISIL interpretation of it of course then its dying time for you. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools-you mean like the Beslan school? check
Was he ever convicted of beating his first wife? A domestic violence conviction should have prevented him from owning guns in Florida.
If he owned the guns legally, then probably not.
PS thanks for making my lunch break interesting guys and gals. Lets keep it civil so we don't get locked like the last one i participated in.
Just got back from lunch and was listening to the radio. FBI official speaking live. The killer actually made statements in support of radical Islami to his co workers at a court house where he was a guard "I hope the police come to my house so I can martyr myself for allah" - this was after he made some statements in support of the Taliban. The killer was then questioned by the FBI in an investigation after he explain that he only said that because they were "picking on him for being Muslim and was feeling discriminated against". He was later released and allowed back to work and went off the radar.
Ouze wrote: No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.
*not gonna get me being absolute again!
Not trying to nitpick but there was the whole giant spread sheet of mass murder research that was put together by the Sandy Hook shooter because he allegedly wanted to commit bigger shooting with more deaths than had been done previously.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.
Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...
I prefer laws that prohibit you from drinking while carrying but let you carry in places that serve alcohol. If I'm going to a restaurant/bar and I want to carry then I need to abstain from drinking. Responsible people are going to obey that law, just like they don't drink and drive.
If you are not going to drink, then you don't have much reason to be in a bar. Or at least that would be the logic behind these kind of laws.
I suspect Texas is similar to Oklahoma in that the law doesn't state you cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol and instead states that you cannot carry on a place where the principal business is alcohol sales. The basic rule is that if less than 50% of sales are food, then you cannot carry there. That means that it's okay to carry into all your basic restaurants that serve alcohol.
If my friends want to go to a bar or if my family wants to go to a place where my wife/relatives can have a drink with dinner it makes sense for me to be able to accompany them and just stay sober if I'm carrying. This is no different than requiring people to stay sober if they want to be able to legally drive home.
And my post explained that the law in Oklahoma has no problem with you going to the place with your wife/relatives to eat dinner and where they can have a drink, but says no to hanging out at the bar.
I don't usually speak about US politics, and even less about their right to carry guns, but in France, it is forbidden to have a weapon: it saved no one in Paris.
I used to think "everyone should be able to carry a gun, but not an automatics gun / a rifle, a handgun is enough to protect his own life", but, in fact, it doesn't work, the bad guys always have the weapons they want.
What was his weapons ? I heard a handgun and a rifle.
Smacks wrote: I think this all started with Col. Dash saying: "Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are".
I think we can all agree that that isn't always going to be practical (or even sensible).
Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.
To be fair, and to be technically correct, the state does not tell private property owners that they cannot let people carry on their premises. They state tells individual people where they cannot carry.
Xenomancers wrote: How much do you really need to know about a religion to be able to know it's gak? A few passages from ether book supporting murder, anti woman, anti gay, or pro slavery - that's enough for me.
Earlier it seemed like you didn't want to make this needlessly about guns, but it now it seems like are trying to make it about religion.
The guy was an angry, unstable, wife beating, homophobe, who's wife had left him. He probably had a tiny penis too. His religion is almost incidental. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools? Anders Breivik was diametrically opposed to radical Islam. These people are just twisted.
He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that?
wife beating, check
homophobe, check
His religion is almost incidental. unless you disagree with the ISIL interpretation of it of course then its dying time for you.
How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools-you mean like the Beslan school? check
I think you got the wrong end of the stick. I'm just trying to explain to Xenomancers that there are other factors beyond simply "he's a Muslim", which made this guy murder 49 people. Just being a Muslim doesn't make someone a violent murderer. He was probably already violent and angry in the first place, which is what attracted him to extremism. Not the other way around.
godardc wrote: I don't usually speak about US politics, and even less about their right to carry guns, but in France, it is forbidden to have a weapon: it saved no one in Paris.
I used to think "everyone should be able to carry a gun, but not an automatics gun / a rifle, a handgun is enough to protect his own life", but, in fact, it doesn't work, the bad guys always have the weapons they want.
What was his weapons ? I heard a handgun and a rifle.
First off that was a tragedy, and the world is still feeling the effects of that horrid day. I do have a question though. If someone, or multiple persons would have had access to even a handgun, would they not have had a chance, even a small one of ending it sooner?
redleger wrote: Truth is, there is no excuse, and anyone who makes an excuse for him is probably not hindered by the burden of individual responsibility. The news is so full of gak that I can't even watch it anymore. It's almost like there is a filter all new goes through, gets cleared, then it can be said. Similar to Public Affairs any time a Soldier wants to talk on the record. (hers your script, don' t deviate, make sure you mention this or that, don't say this or that)
He committed a heinous hate crime/ domestic terrorism/ terrorism. He gets remanded with no bail, goes to trial, gets the death penalty, and we remove his ability to breed from the face of this earth.
Are we talking about the killer? Didn't he die in the shootout?
Smacks wrote: I think this all started with Col. Dash saying: "Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are".
I think we can all agree that that isn't always going to be practical (or even sensible).
Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.
To be fair, and to be technically correct, the state does not tell private property owners that they cannot let people carry on their premises. They state tells individual people where they cannot carry.
agreed, I was simply saying that if Walmart didn't allow it, here in Lawton, Im pretty sure they would lose a lot of business. But they could say no.
redleger wrote: Truth is, there is no excuse, and anyone who makes an excuse for him is probably not hindered by the burden of individual responsibility. The news is so full of gak that I can't even watch it anymore. It's almost like there is a filter all new goes through, gets cleared, then it can be said. Similar to Public Affairs any time a Soldier wants to talk on the record. (hers your script, don' t deviate, make sure you mention this or that, don't say this or that)
He committed a heinous hate crime/ domestic terrorism/ terrorism. He gets remanded with no bail, goes to trial, gets the death penalty, and we remove his ability to breed from the face of this earth.
Are we talking about the killer? Didn't he die in the shootout?
yes, so the process was just shortened. In general though, I have no tolerance for excuse making for criminals. People have free will. No one makes you do anything. You make a choice, you accept the consequences, or don't but that doesn't stop consequences from happening.
godardc wrote: I don't usually speak about US politics, and even less about their right to carry guns, but in France, it is forbidden to have a weapon: it saved no one in Paris.
I used to think "everyone should be able to carry a gun, but not an automatics gun / a rifle, a handgun is enough to protect his own life", but, in fact, it doesn't work, the bad guys always have the weapons they want.
What was his weapons ? I heard a handgun and a rifle.
First off that was a tragedy, and the world is still feeling the effects of that horrid day. I do have a question though. If someone, or multiple persons would have had access to even a handgun, would they not have had a chance, even a small one of ending it sooner?
Yes, we are living in a sad, sad era. I'm lucky enough to live in a small town, so I think I'm pretty safe.
It is what I believe, but I'm not certain: do we have any example of an armed citizen killing a mass-shooter, even just one example ?
Xenomancers wrote: where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you.
That isn't how it works. You can't just grab a young man at random, and get him to die for you by promising him virgins in the afterlife, that would be stupid. You might have noticed that other extreme groups, such as Nazi's, also manage to recruit young men (skin heads and such), without any promise of virgins.
These ideologies don't choose people and trick them into doing stuff, the people choose the ideology. Most people just pick and choose the parts of their religion that suit them anyway. The kind of people who choose extremism are not characteristically religious adherents. Usually they are young men who are already angry and frustrated, looking for some way to externalize their failures, and feel important. Ideas like "99 Virgins" or "The master race" exist because these people need to feel that they are superior in some way. It is their way of telling themselves they are better than the people they hate, even though their real lives and achievements would suggest otherwise.
You can try blaming the religion, but the fact is, the vast majority of Muslims don't become extremists. So firstly it doesn't add up, and secondly it causes you to overlook more important factors that push people towards violent ideologies.
While the vast majority of [religious adherents] don't become extremists, that's true for basically everyone. Most people who hold any given doctrine don't become extremists within their group (which is rather tautological). What cannot be dismissed out of hand is the role religion plays in shaping culture, world view and especially expectations of the individual. Moreover, it's simply untenable to argue that people are not motivated to do things because of religious convictions. As an orthodox Jew I need only look at my own behavior, and my peer's, to disprove that idea. Story time, 2 anecdotes;
The first is my own story; when I was a younger man, some of my friends were picking on another of my friends. Not in the usual way of ribbing or whatnot, but in a way I found particularly cruel but entirely juvenile. But to me it invoked the words of Rav Akiba, 'what is hateful to you, do not do unto another'. So I got into a fight.
As it happens, I got into a fight with six of my friends, so I (unsurprisingly) lost that fight. But I am more proud of losing that fight then any of my victories on the schoolyard. It's also worth pointing out that, from a utilitarian viewpoint, I made the situation much worse: my friends may have been involved in a humiliating prank, but it was limited to the humiliation of one person, while I got into a brawl with six. But I am not a utilitarian, I am Jew.
Second anecdote; some years later, two of my coworkers were having a discussion. One was an orthodox Jewish woman, the other a Belgian woman of indeterminate secular Christianity, both doctoral students at the time. They were talking about their relatives of note and the Jewish woman mentioned how very proud she was of a particular relative, one who had helped to smuggle arms to what was then the British Mandate (the precursor to modern Israel).
The Belgian woman was scandalized: how could anyone be proud not just of someone breaking the law, but helping others commit violence? Not just violence, but what the British considered (not unjustly) as terrorism. The Belgian woman was flummoxed and by colleague was at a loss to help her understand. I saw both sides, understood both sides, but also saw that neither could ever truly understand what the other felt, either the pride of one or the revulsion of the other.
Even for the most devout, religion does not dictate every action; but it does inform the way we view the world, and to the extent that it does so inform the content of the religion is important. Judaism is a faith that values peace, but it is not a pacifist religion. But there are truly pacifistic faiths and to imagine there is no difference between Judaism and Jainism is deeply flawed, and prohibits deeper understanding. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are related, yet profoundly different.
I have fought people before because I believed it was what my faith required. To imagine I am the only one who has been so motivated would be the height of hubris, and I do not think myself so exceptional in devotion. So if we accept that there are people, not everyone to be sure, but a substantial number of people that are so motivated by their faiths, then it behooves us to understand those faiths and their differences.
godardc wrote: I don't usually speak about US politics, and even less about their right to carry guns, but in France, it is forbidden to have a weapon: it saved no one in Paris.
I used to think "everyone should be able to carry a gun, but not an automatics gun / a rifle, a handgun is enough to protect his own life", but, in fact, it doesn't work, the bad guys always have the weapons they want.
What was his weapons ? I heard a handgun and a rifle.
First off that was a tragedy, and the world is still feeling the effects of that horrid day. I do have a question though. If someone, or multiple persons would have had access to even a handgun, would they not have had a chance, even a small one of ending it sooner?
Yes, we are living in a sad, sad era. I'm lucky enough to live in a small town, so I think I'm pretty safe.
It is what I believe, but I'm not certain: do we have any example of an armed citizen killing a mass-shooter, even just one example ?
Example of mass shooting stopped by Civillian armed intervention? google is blocking me thanks to a work computer program. However if one was prevented, then it didn't become a mass shooting. My answer to you is however, no, a mass shooting can not be prevented. It can be stopped short though. As I stated earlier, the speed, and violence of action that takes place before anyone can react is the first danger, and is hard to overcome. It is what happens next that determines if its 10 casualties, or 50. I mean, the stars could align, and someone could prevent if they are diligent, but the likely hood of prevention is far lower than putting a stop to something before it reaches critical mass.
Frazzled wrote: He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that?
I think you got the wrong end of the stick. I'm just trying to explain to Xenomancers that there are other factors beyond simply "he's a Muslim", which made this guy murder 49 people. Just being a Muslim doesn't make someone a violent murderer. He was probably already violent and angry in the first place, which is what attracted him to extremism. Not the other way around.
Can anyone really know what this guy would have done if not for Islam? There is no way of knowing. You are right too about him being violent- his wife said he used to beat her. That's okay in Islam though - women aren't allow to disobey their husbands in Islam. Why wouldn't Islam attract a violent person who likes to beat their wife? Muhammad himself was a violent murdering pedophile who was fond of wife beating. Maybe he would have been a wife beater and a murder without Islam - who knows? How many violent christian wife beaters are crashing planes into buildings and shooting up gay bars though?
Xenomancers wrote: where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you.
That isn't how it works. You can't just grab a young man at random, and get him to die for you by promising him virgins in the afterlife, that would be stupid. You might have noticed that other extreme groups, such as Nazi's, also manage to recruit young men (skin heads and such), without any promise of virgins.
These ideologies don't choose people and trick them into doing stuff, the people choose the ideology. Most people just pick and choose the parts of their religion that suit them anyway. The kind of people who choose extremism are not characteristically religious adherents. Usually they are young men who are already angry and frustrated, looking for some way to externalize their failures, and feel important. Ideas like "99 Virgins" or "The master race" exist because these people need to feel that they are superior in some way. It is their way of telling themselves they are better than the people they hate, even though their real lives and achievements would suggest otherwise.
You can try blaming the religion, but the fact is, the vast majority of Muslims don't become extremists. So firstly it doesn't add up, and secondly it causes you to overlook more important factors that push people towards violent ideologies.
While the vast majority of [religious adherents] don't become extremists, that's true for basically everyone. Most people who hold any given doctrine don't become extremists within their group (which is rather tautological). What cannot be dismissed out of hand is the role religion plays in shaping culture, world view and especially expectations of the individual. Moreover, it's simply untenable to argue that people are not motivated to do things because of religious convictions. As an orthodox Jew I need only look at my own behavior, and my peer's, to disprove that idea. Story time, 2 anecdotes;
The first is my own story; when I was a younger man, some of my friends were picking on another of my friends. Not in the usual way of ribbing or whatnot, but in a way I found particularly cruel but entirely juvenile. But to me it invoked the words of Rav Akiba, 'what is hateful to you, do not do unto another'. So I got into a fight.
As it happens, I got into a fight with six of my friends, so I (unsurprisingly) lost that fight. But I am more proud of losing that fight then any of my victories on the schoolyard. It's also worth pointing out that, from a utilitarian viewpoint, I made the situation much worse: my friends may have been involved in a humiliating prank, but it was limited to the humiliation of one person, while I got into a brawl with six. But I am not a utilitarian, I am Jew.
Second anecdote; some years later, two of my coworkers were having a discussion. One was an orthodox Jewish woman, the other a Belgian woman of indeterminate secular Christianity, both doctoral students at the time. They were talking about their relatives of note and the Jewish woman mentioned how very proud she was of a particular relative, one who had helped to smuggle arms to what was then the British Mandate (the precursor to modern Israel).
The Belgian woman was scandalized: how could anyone be proud not just of someone breaking the law, but helping others commit violence? Not just violence, but what the British considered (not unjustly) as terrorism. The Belgian woman was flummoxed and by colleague was at a loss to help her understand. I saw both sides, understood both sides, but also saw that neither could ever truly understand what the other felt, either the pride of one or the revulsion of the other.
Even for the most devout, religion does not dictate every action; but it does inform the way we view the world, and to the extent that it does so inform the content of the religion is important. Judaism is a faith that values peace, but it is not a pacifist religion. But there are truly pacifistic faiths and to imagine there is no difference between Judaism and Jainism is deeply flawed, and prohibits deeper understanding. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are related, yet profoundly different.
I have fought people before because I believed it was what my faith required. To imagine I am the only one who has been so motivated would be the height of hubris, and I do not think myself so exceptional in devotion. So if we accept that there are people, not everyone to be sure, but a substantial number of people that are so motivated by their faiths, then it behooves us to understand those faiths and their differences.
I can agree. One of the main factors for radicalising Islam though is that imam's have the ability to interpret and teach as they see fit. Just as christian pastors for the given sect they are a member of do the same with the bible. different areas of the middle east are stabilized based on the teaching of the imam in that particular area. It leads to different takes, and easy manipulation. It is similar to the catholic churches beliefs early on that only priests and men should read the bible, because they wanted them to teach its interpretations a certain way. When everyone was able to read it, then you started seeing varying differences in interpretations .
A terror attack requires a political end. What is the political end of this attack?
ISIL ISIL ISIL. For an ISIL terrorist killing a bunch GLBT westerners is a twofer.
Right, but what is the desired endgame? Killing for the sake of killing? Maybe. I miss the good old days of terrorists with specific aims. "Release these political prisoners or we start shooting hostages".
Desubot wrote:
feeder wrote: So, what facts are known about this event?
1. US-born citizen committed the attack with legally obtained firearms.
2. Radicalised via the internet. Is there any indication he had travelled to the ME for training or other support?
3. Chosen target based on attacker's personal extreme homophobia.
If the above facts are true then no amount of "immigrant banning" or "gun control" would have stopped this particular attack.
I think this is the physical manifestation of one person's extreme frustration and hatred.
A terror attack requires a political end. What is the political end of this attack?
Terrorism requires a political connection?
i though it was ideological. which is why its basically impossible to stop them all.
I mean that "terrorism" is usually employing terror as a means to a political end. IRA bombing pubs with the intent to achieve self rule in Ireland, for example.
Prestor Jon wrote:
feeder wrote: So, what facts are known about this event?
1. US-born citizen committed the attack with legally obtained firearms.
2. Radicalised via the internet. Is there any indication he had travelled to the ME for training or other support?
3. Chosen target based on attacker's personal extreme homophobia.
If the above facts are true then no amount of "immigrant banning" or "gun control" would have stopped this particular attack.
I think this is the physical manifestation of one person's extreme frustration and hatred.
A terror attack requires a political end. What is the political end of this attack?
The attacker called 911 specifically to mention he wanted to be associated with ISIS/ISIL and even if there is no evidence of a stronger connection than that, it still creates a lot of publicity for ISIS and associates it with killing homosexuals in a western country which is good propaganda for them in their part of the world. The publicity is enough of a political benefit to make it terrorist attack in my opinion.
Fair point. This nutjob wants an Islamic State and thinks shooting up a nightclub is the way to go about it. Not sure I follow his logic.
redleger wrote:Agree on all, except if you commit an act that causes terror, and claim to be doing so in the name of a extremest group, then that links you to the group. therefore it is terror related. If I go out and run over someone, all the headline says is Soldier runs over this person, not SSG (name redacted for opsec) runs over this person. I am associated with my group. The group therefore becomes associated with me. I am an individual, but all anyone sees is Army guy does bad thing.
Yes, but you are actually a member of the US Armed Forces. AFAIK, this guy just follows ISIS on Instagram. By that logic, I'm a Suicide Girl.
CptJake wrote:1. 2nd generation are more prone to radicalization.
Frazzled wrote: He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that?
I think you got the wrong end of the stick. I'm just trying to explain to Xenomancers that there are other factors beyond simply "he's a Muslim", which made this guy murder 49 people. Just being a Muslim doesn't make someone a violent murderer. He was probably already violent and angry in the first place, which is what attracted him to extremism. Not the other way around.
Can anyone really know what this guy would have done if not for Islam? There is no way of knowing. You are right too about him being violent- his wife said he used to beat her. That's okay in Islam though - women aren't allow to disobey their husbands in Islam. Why wouldn't Islam attract a violent person who likes to beat their wife? Muhammad himself was a violent murdering pedophile who was fond of wife beating. Maybe he would have been a wife beater and a murder without Islam - who knows? How many violent christian wife beaters are crashing planes into buildings and shooting up gay bars though?
to be fair, Christians are responsible for many acts of domestic terrorism. Abortion clinics being the first to come to mind. They also manipulate laws to protest funerals. Radical Christianity is just as deadly, we just tolerate it a bit more, although I do not understand why.
Frazzled wrote: He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that?
I think you got the wrong end of the stick. I'm just trying to explain to Xenomancers that there are other factors beyond simply "he's a Muslim", which made this guy murder 49 people. Just being a Muslim doesn't make someone a violent murderer. He was probably already violent and angry in the first place, which is what attracted him to extremism. Not the other way around.
Can anyone really know what this guy would have done if not for Islam? There is no way of knowing. You are right too about him being violent- his wife said he used to beat her. That's okay in Islam though - women aren't allow to disobey their husbands in Islam. Why wouldn't Islam attract a violent person who likes to beat their wife? Muhammad himself was a violent murdering pedophile who was fond of wife beating. Maybe he would have been a wife beater and a murder without Islam - who knows? How many violent christian wife beaters are crashing planes into buildings and shooting up gay bars though?
to be fair, Christians are responsible for many acts of domestic terrorism. Abortion clinics being the first to come to mind. They also manipulate laws to protest funerals. Radical Christianity is just as deadly, we just tolerate it a bit more, although I do not understand why.
I radical Christianity is just as deadly where are the radical Christian attacks that have been just as deadly as Ft Hood, San Benardini and Orlando shootings?
All religious zealotry is dangerous. Ideas are incredibly dangerous and powerful and are impossible for govts and society to control.
3. That is your guess, not based on any actually revealed facts from the investigation.
1. True. Why is that? I suspect the answer is "it depends".
2. Interesting. Saudi Arabia is an "ally" but incredibly shady and the nation of millionaires does fund a sizable portion of terror groups.
3. I thought the "two guys kissing" narrative set him off? It's early days still, so lots of info will be incomplete.
I posted some links that get you started on the answer to 1. It is not 'it depends'.
Syed Farook had also traveled to Saudi. Lots of radicalizing Wahabi influences there without looking for direct ties to the Saudi gov't or royal family. And lots of travel across land borders from Saudi to places known to have jihadi training.
The 'two guys kissing' is what daddy said. Daddy also is a fan of the Talibs. I'll wait for the investigation to turn up more before taking Daddy at his word.
Frazzled wrote: He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that?
I think you got the wrong end of the stick. I'm just trying to explain to Xenomancers that there are other factors beyond simply "he's a Muslim", which made this guy murder 49 people. Just being a Muslim doesn't make someone a violent murderer. He was probably already violent and angry in the first place, which is what attracted him to extremism. Not the other way around.
Can anyone really know what this guy would have done if not for Islam? There is no way of knowing. You are right too about him being violent- his wife said he used to beat her. That's okay in Islam though - women aren't allow to disobey their husbands in Islam. Why wouldn't Islam attract a violent person who likes to beat their wife? Muhammad himself was a violent murdering pedophile who was fond of wife beating. Maybe he would have been a wife beater and a murder without Islam - who knows? How many violent christian wife beaters are crashing planes into buildings and shooting up gay bars though?
to be fair, Christians are responsible for many acts of domestic terrorism. Abortion clinics being the first to come to mind. They also manipulate laws to protest funerals. Radical Christianity is just as deadly, we just tolerate it a bit more, although I do not understand why.
It's probably because Christianity is adapting (slowly) to the evolution of humanism and Islam is not. Islam much prefers the social stone age.
Frazzled wrote: He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that?
I think you got the wrong end of the stick. I'm just trying to explain to Xenomancers that there are other factors beyond simply "he's a Muslim", which made this guy murder 49 people. Just being a Muslim doesn't make someone a violent murderer. He was probably already violent and angry in the first place, which is what attracted him to extremism. Not the other way around.
Can anyone really know what this guy would have done if not for Islam? There is no way of knowing. You are right too about him being violent- his wife said he used to beat her. That's okay in Islam though - women aren't allow to disobey their husbands in Islam. Why wouldn't Islam attract a violent person who likes to beat their wife? Muhammad himself was a violent murdering pedophile who was fond of wife beating. Maybe he would have been a wife beater and a murder without Islam - who knows? How many violent christian wife beaters are crashing planes into buildings and shooting up gay bars though?
to be fair, Christians are responsible for many acts of domestic terrorism. Abortion clinics being the first to come to mind. They also manipulate laws to protest funerals. Radical Christianity is just as deadly, we just tolerate it a bit more, although I do not understand why.
I radical Christianity is just as deadly where are the radical Christian attacks that have been just as deadly as Ft Hood, San Benardini and Orlando shootings?
All religious zealotry is dangerous. Ideas are incredibly dangerous and powerful and are impossible for govts and society to control.
And those abortion bombings and shooting were complex in nature, IE bombs then shooting people as they came out. There is nothing more dangerous than a complex ambush, when you are the one being ambushed. I am not a fan of religion in general, but ideology of any nature can be dangerous when misused. Its not just Islam.
While the vast majority of [religious adherents] don't become extremists, that's true for basically everyone. Most people who hold any given doctrine don't become extremists within their group (which is rather tautological). What cannot be dismissed out of hand is the role religion plays in shaping culture, world view and especially expectations of the individual. Moreover, it's simply untenable to argue that people are not motivated to do things because of religious convictions. As an orthodox Jew I need only look at my own behavior, and my peer's, to disprove that idea. Story time, 2 anecdotes;
The first is my own story; when I was a younger man, some of my friends were picking on another of my friends. Not in the usual way of ribbing or whatnot, but in a way I found particularly cruel but entirely juvenile. But to me it invoked the words of Rav Akiba, 'what is hateful to you, do not do unto another'. So I got into a fight.
As it happens, I got into a fight with six of my friends, so I (unsurprisingly) lost that fight. But I am more proud of losing that fight then any of my victories on the schoolyard. It's also worth pointing out that, from a utilitarian viewpoint, I made the situation much worse: my friends may have been involved in a humiliating prank, but it was limited to the humiliation of one person, while I got into a brawl with six. But I am not a utilitarian, I am Jew.
Second anecdote; some years later, two of my coworkers were having a discussion. One was an orthodox Jewish woman, the other a Belgian woman of indeterminate secular Christianity, both doctoral students at the time. They were talking about their relatives of note and the Jewish woman mentioned how very proud she was of a particular relative, one who had helped to smuggle arms to what was then the British Mandate (the precursor to modern Israel).
The Belgian woman was scandalized: how could anyone be proud not just of someone breaking the law, but helping others commit violence? Not just violence, but what the British considered (not unjustly) as terrorism. The Belgian woman was flummoxed and by colleague was at a loss to help her understand. I saw both sides, understood both sides, but also saw that neither could ever truly understand what the other felt, either the pride of one or the revulsion of the other.
Even for the most devout, religion does not dictate every action; but it does inform the way we view the world, and to the extent that it does so inform the content of the religion is important. Judaism is a faith that values peace, but it is not a pacifist religion. But there are truly pacifistic faiths and to imagine there is no difference between Judaism and Jainism is deeply flawed, and prohibits deeper understanding. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are related, yet profoundly different.
I have fought people before because I believed it was what my faith required. To imagine I am the only one who has been so motivated would be the height of hubris, and I do not think myself so exceptional in devotion. So if we accept that there are people, not everyone to be sure, but a substantial number of people that are so motivated by their faiths, then it behooves us to understand those faiths and their differences.
Beautifully written post Buzzsaw. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I think I'm being lead off point... Xenomancers original point was that Islam is essentially evil and teaches people to murder infidels. Which is really quite a sweeping brush to tar about a billion people with. That is what I objected to. There does exist some violent scripture, and interpretations, but that is true of other religions. To claim that the whole religion is evil because of a few extremists, is just ignorant.
Xenomancers wrote: How many violent christian wife beaters are crashing planes into buildings and shooting up gay bars though?
There are different cultural factors, white people are more likely to turn towards nationalism. Anti Semitic/anti Islamic organisations for example. I have already mentioned Anders Breivik, who considered himself a modern day crusader. Or they might project their anger towards other groups, Elliot Rodger blamed his issues on women, for example.
d-usa wrote: Looking at the big picture, this guy is just as representative of Islam as he is of US citizens who own guns.
How do you figure? ISIS calls for Islamic's all over the world to be soldiers for Islam and do exactly what he did. If fact - he is a poster child and a hero for ISIS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
redleger wrote: Im an athiest who loves guns. Im actually a minority. Most athiests tend to lean way way to the left.
d-usa wrote: Looking at the big picture, this guy is just as representative of Islam as he is of US citizens who own guns.
How do you figure? ISIS calls for Islamic's all over the world to be soldiers for Islam and do exactly what he did. If fact - he is a poster child and a hero for ISIS.
.
d-usa wrote: Looking at the big picture, this guy is just as representative of Islam as he is of US citizens who own guns.
How do you figure? ISIS calls for Islamic's all over the world to be soldiers for Islam and do exactly what he did. If fact - he is a poster child and a hero for ISIS.
.
I see the confusion in you post.
Yep - totally misread your post there - sorry. Then again not really. He is representative of what ISIS wants. ISIS is actually a pretty huge influence in Islam right now too - it's not some little group that can be cast away as an extremist minority.
Xenomancers wrote: ISIS is actually a pretty huge influence in Islam right now too - it's not some little group that can be cast away as an extremist minority.
Please explain the logic underlying your conclusion. There are a billion Muslims worldwide.
Xenomancers wrote: ISIS is actually a pretty huge influence in Islam right now too - it's not some little group that can be cast away as an extremist minority.
Please explain the logic underlying your conclusion. There are a billion Muslims worldwide.
I think a better way to put it is that, at the moment, ISIS is an important and influential concern for the world. That doesn't make it a huge influence on Islam.
Spinner wrote: I think a better way to put it is that, at the moment, ISIS is an important and influential concern for the world. That doesn't make it a huge influence on Islam.
While true,
We also have to stay viligant about their actions as a whole, (not muslims) but of the terrorist organizations.
Alot of this could of been prevented, but the world sat back and let it happen.
Gun owners need to get a press conference together where someone looks into the camera, as if speaking to the perpetrator, and says, "you do not represent us." That should satisfy anyone's concerns about gun ownership, right?
Manchu wrote: Gun owners need to get a press conference together where someone looks into the camera, as if speaking to the perpetrator, and says, "you do not represent us." That should satisfy anyone's concerns about gun ownership, right?
"A responsible gun owner shouldn't have to worry about this prejudice!"
(Not attacking ya, just making an estimation or summarization of what might be a defense)
To gun owner: So what you are saying, that I shouldn't go into a crowd and kill people? Oh I thought I was supposed to do. OR do you keep guns not to shoot people? If thats the case then why didn't everyone in the bar have a gun?
That is an incredible dumb argument admittedly.
I think the best course of action is just to get rid of semiautomatic rifles and go the Australia route here. The guy got the gun three weeks before he went off and killed people.
Or
You put restrictions on who can own a gun.... AKA
Someone has been listed as a convicted felon, is currently on an FBI watchlist, or has been investigated by the Federal Government on numerous occasions.
I can't imagine anyone summarizing a defense of. "Well if the people at the club had guns..."
Without thinking to themselves. "Fifty innocent people died."
Mass paranoia is not a good enough reason or defense when faced terrorism. Guns would not of helped in this situation, nor do I think anyone should reasonably believe that giving more guns is a reasonable conclusion.
I hope we see movements of legislature. How many more people have to die?
Manchu wrote: Gun owners need to get a press conference together where someone looks into the camera, as if speaking to the perpetrator, and says, "you do not represent us." That should satisfy anyone's concerns about gun ownership, right?
So... is there some strain of "Gun Ownership Clubs" that calls for war/jihad/random murder?
Someone has been listed as a convicted felon, is currently on an FBI watchlist, or has been investigated by the Federal Government on numerous occasions.
1. If he was a convicted felon he could not legally purchase firearms.
2. The government putting someone on a list does not deprive them of the rights under the Bill of Rights. Which other fundamental rights are you ok with losing if the government decides you are on a hidden list? North Korea would approve.
OK, here is the deal. You ban semi automatic rifles, then shotguns become the norm. You ban shotguns, pistols become the norm. You ban pistols, revolvers become the norm, you ban revolvers, semi automatic rifles become the norm. You see where this is going.
a bullet from a .22 caliber pistol kills you just as dead as a 5.56 round from a rifle. Banning any form of weapon does not fix the problem. People use tools. The tools are not to blame, the people are. Blame this person. Bombs are banned and they get used.
Someone has been listed as a convicted felon, is currently on an FBI watchlist, or has been investigated by the Federal Government on numerous occasions.
Convicted felons, even convicted of non-violent crimes, are not allowed to legally posses firearms.
There are very VERY good reasons why inclusion on a watchlist is a gakky reason to deprive them of a constitutionally protected right. And if the gov't investigates and cannot find enough evidence to prosecute and convict, again stripping away a constitutionally protected right is just wrong. Should we also strip away their 4th amendment rights and allow the Feds to search them at will with no warrant? How about strip away their 1st amendment rights and not allow them to communicate so they cannot spread their ideas?
We have Due Process requirements for damned good reasons. There is NO due process for inclusion on the watch list, and it is almost impossible to get yourself removed even in the multiple cases of false positives the various watch lists have had.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
redleger wrote: OK, here is the deal. You ban semi automatic rifles, then shotguns become the norm. You ban shotguns, pistols become the norm. You ban pistols, revolvers become the norm, you ban revolvers, semi automatic rifles become the norm. You see where this is going.
a bullet from a .22 caliber pistol kills you just as dead as a 5.56 round from a rifle. Banning any form of weapon does not fix the problem. People use tools. The tools are not to blame, the people are. Blame this person. Bombs are banned and they get used.
Pistols are already the norm. Semi-automatic rifles account for a minuscule portion of gun murders.
What I mean is, you have millions of gun owners in the US. Obviously the vast majority are law abiding people. Similarly, you have millions of Muslims living in the US and again the vast majority are law abiding people. If it is so clear to see how a relatively tiny proportion of either group should not be held up to defame the whole group and deprive them of their rights, then why is it so hard to see the same thing about the other group? The simple answer is, because you are beholden to a larger agenda that runs on manufacturing fear and righteousness.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Boy, a lot of the news sites reporting on this seem to keep mentioning a time he saw some gay men making out in front of his family, and imply that was the reason he went on a shooting spree.
That seems like the dumbest reasoning since they blamed Benghazi on that ridiculous youtube video.
We may not ever know why he did it, exactly, but it seems like they're trying to cover up a more likely terrorism connection by blaming it on him seeing a couple dudes making out.
Yeah, I don't know why they're trying to connect it at all to homophobia, there's nothing else that connects it other than him going out of his way specifically to target a gay club.
Ouze wrote: No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.
*not gonna get me being absolute again!
Not trying to nitpick but there was the whole giant spread sheet of mass murder research that was put together by the Sandy Hook shooter because he allegedly wanted to commit bigger shooting with more deaths than had been done previously.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.
Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...
I prefer laws that prohibit you from drinking while carrying but let you carry in places that serve alcohol. If I'm going to a restaurant/bar and I want to carry then I need to abstain from drinking. Responsible people are going to obey that law, just like they don't drink and drive.
If you are not going to drink, then you don't have much reason to be in a bar. Or at least that would be the logic behind these kind of laws.
I suspect Texas is similar to Oklahoma in that the law doesn't state you cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol and instead states that you cannot carry on a place where the principal business is alcohol sales. The basic rule is that if less than 50% of sales are food, then you cannot carry there. That means that it's okay to carry into all your basic restaurants that serve alcohol.
If my friends want to go to a bar or if my family wants to go to a place where my wife/relatives can have a drink with dinner it makes sense for me to be able to accompany them and just stay sober if I'm carrying. This is no different than requiring people to stay sober if they want to be able to legally drive home.
And my post explained that the law in Oklahoma has no problem with you going to the place with your wife/relatives to eat dinner and where they can have a drink, but says no to hanging out at the bar.
And I don't see the point in not letting me be the designated driver while I'm carrying but we'll just agree to disagree and let this tangent die.
Manchu wrote: What I mean is, you have millions of gun owners in the US. Obviously the vast majority are law abiding people. Similarly, you have millions of Muslims living in the US and again the vast majority are law abiding people. If it is so clear to see how a relatively tiny proportion of either group should not be held up to defame the whole group and deprive them of their rights, then why is it so hard to see the same thing about the other group? The simple answer is, because you are beholden to a larger agenda that runs on manufacturing fear and righteousness.
Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.
I do not think Islam is to blame, rather this individual is to blame. He fell into ideology, and somehow got it into his head this accomplished something. Right now its accomplishing terror, so mission accomplished, while we argue over guns, they (radicals) are laughing at us.
Individual responsibility, harsh penalties when we do capture them alive, and acceptance that not all massacres can be prevented. It is a harsh, sad reality, but none the less one which is true. I hate it. I hate the fact that my daughters have to worry about rape, violence, fanaticism, and all around bad people. I do what I can to be vigilant, teach them to make good decisions, but that doesn't stop bad things from happening, it merely lessens the chances.
I agree that if you blame one group, you possibly open up the other group to be blamed though. Its a valid stance. but as I mentioned before, individual responsibility for actions. then if he was on "orders" from another group, we find them, incarcerate and or kill them.
3. That is your guess, not based on any actually revealed facts from the investigation.
1. True. Why is that? I suspect the answer is "it depends".
2. Interesting. Saudi Arabia is an "ally" but incredibly shady and the nation of millionaires does fund a sizable portion of terror groups.
3. I thought the "two guys kissing" narrative set him off? It's early days still, so lots of info will be incomplete.
I posted some links that get you started on the answer to 1. It is not 'it depends'.
Syed Farook had also traveled to Saudi. Lots of radicalizing Wahabi influences there without looking for direct ties to the Saudi gov't or royal family. And lots of travel across land borders from Saudi to places known to have jihadi training.
The 'two guys kissing' is what daddy said. Daddy also is a fan of the Talibs. I'll wait for the investigation to turn up more before taking Daddy at his word.
I don't disagree with your take on Wahabi influences but it's my understanding that the Saudi royal family has a formal obligation to promote and spread Wahabism and would have difficulty maintaining their power if they didn't do so or acted against Wahabism.
Frazzled wrote: Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.
They have to. They don't have any other script. (Keep in mind that their best argument against one another is, I'm not you.) It's the same everywhere, even on a miniatures gaming webforum. The commitments have already been made, minds are firmly shut.
Frazzled wrote: Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.
They have to. They don't have any other script. (Keep in mind that their best argument against one another is, I'm not you.) It's the same everywhere, even on a miniatures gaming webforum. The commitments have already been made, minds are firmly shut.
Politicians always try to motivate people with fear. Fear of an attack from some group outside your own, fear of the other candidate winning, etc.
Manchu wrote: What I mean is, you have millions of gun owners in the US. Obviously the vast majority are law abiding people. Similarly, you have millions of Muslims living in the US and again the vast majority are law abiding people. If it is so clear to see how a relatively tiny proportion of either group should not be held up to defame the whole group and deprive them of their rights, then why is it so hard to see the same thing about the other group? The simple answer is, because you are beholden to a larger agenda that runs on manufacturing fear and righteousness.
I don't disagree on principle.
I don't mind the pro-more-gun-control making their case...
nor, do I mind that the pro-gun-ownership making theirs...
Both sides are making their cases (whether poorly or strong). At least we can have this debate.
It's the idea that we're told to shutup about criticizing another's religion. Which isn't... optimal.
Meaning, let's discuss the rampant homophobia perpetuated by these radical extremist...
Frazzled wrote: Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.
They have to. They don't have any other script. (Keep in mind that their best argument against one another is, I'm not you.) It's the same everywhere, even on a miniatures gaming webforum. The commitments have already been made, minds are firmly shut.
I am not in either camp. Truth is, Trump lost me at mention of conentration camps, and Hillary lost me the moment she started running. It pains me to say, if I had to vote it would be Sanders, and even then thats the lesser of several evils. I think people here are just upset at the events, and realize groups will again use this as an excuse to attack one group or the other, instead of coming together and just showing some sympathy. I mean, really, there is nothing we can do, the moment has passed, the damage is done. We all agree it was horrible.
Manchu wrote: What I mean is, you have millions of gun owners in the US. Obviously the vast majority are law abiding people. Similarly, you have millions of Muslims living in the US and again the vast majority are law abiding people. If it is so clear to see how a relatively tiny proportion of either group should not be held up to defame the whole group and deprive them of their rights, then why is it so hard to see the same thing about the other group? The simple answer is, because you are beholden to a larger agenda that runs on manufacturing fear and righteousness.
I don't disagree on principle.
I don't mind the pro-more-gun-control making their case...
nor, do I mind that the pro-gun-ownership making theirs...
Both sides are making their cases (whether poorly or strong). At least we can have this debate.
It's the idea that we're told to shutup about criticizing another's religion. Which isn't... optimal.
Meaning, let's discuss the rampant homophobia perpetuated by these radical extremist...
Can we please?
Lets discuss the hold religion has on too many facets of daily life while we are at it.
I agree though, there is a lot of intolerance hidden in the peaceful relgion, but I could show instances of that in most religions. Buddha, that guy got it right though.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Boy, a lot of the news sites reporting on this seem to keep mentioning a time he saw some gay men making out in front of his family, and imply that was the reason he went on a shooting spree.
That seems like the dumbest reasoning since they blamed Benghazi on that ridiculous youtube video.
We may not ever know why he did it, exactly, but it seems like they're trying to cover up a more likely terrorism connection by blaming it on him seeing a couple dudes making out.
Yeah, I don't know why they're trying to connect it at all to homophobia, there's nothing else that connects it other than him going out of his way specifically to target a gay club.
Targeting a gay club on the first day of gay pride month.
Frazzled wrote: Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.
They have to. They don't have any other script. (Keep in mind that their best argument against one another is, I'm not you.) It's the same everywhere, even on a miniatures gaming webforum. The commitments have already been made, minds are firmly shut.
Its like I am desperately trying to disagree with your statement, but I can't...arghh!!!
One can easily condemn ISIL without condemning Islam. After all, 95% of ISIL's victims are muslims.
Frazzled wrote: Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.
They have to. They don't have any other script. (Keep in mind that their best argument against one another is, I'm not you.) It's the same everywhere, even on a miniatures gaming webforum. The commitments have already been made, minds are firmly shut.
Its like I am desperately trying to disagree with your statement, but I can't...arghh!!!
One can easily condemn ISIL without condemning Islam. After all, 95% of ISIL's victims are muslims.
Yep!
So yeah, I can't help but agree with that.
Do we have any other news so far? Apart from GUN LAWS or GUNS? And any news on victims or the families? Did they get a total kill count or the people in the hosptial fine?
Frazzled wrote: Both Presidential candidates are attacking those parties. One is attacking one, one another.
They have to. They don't have any other script. (Keep in mind that their best argument against one another is, I'm not you.) It's the same everywhere, even on a miniatures gaming webforum. The commitments have already been made, minds are firmly shut.
I am not in either camp. Truth is, Trump lost me at mention of conentration camps, and Hillary lost me the moment she started running. It pains me to say, if I had to vote it would be Sanders, and even then thats the lesser of several evils. I think people here are just upset at the events, and realize groups will again use this as an excuse to attack one group or the other, instead of coming together and just showing some sympathy. I mean, really, there is nothing we can do, the moment has passed, the damage is done. We all agree it was horrible.
Manchu wrote: What I mean is, you have millions of gun owners in the US. Obviously the vast majority are law abiding people. Similarly, you have millions of Muslims living in the US and again the vast majority are law abiding people. If it is so clear to see how a relatively tiny proportion of either group should not be held up to defame the whole group and deprive them of their rights, then why is it so hard to see the same thing about the other group? The simple answer is, because you are beholden to a larger agenda that runs on manufacturing fear and righteousness.
I don't disagree on principle.
I don't mind the pro-more-gun-control making their case...
nor, do I mind that the pro-gun-ownership making theirs...
Both sides are making their cases (whether poorly or strong). At least we can have this debate.
It's the idea that we're told to shutup about criticizing another's religion. Which isn't... optimal.
Meaning, let's discuss the rampant homophobia perpetuated by these radical extremist...
Can we please?
Lets discuss the hold religion has on too many facets of daily life while we are at it.
I agree though, there is a lot of intolerance hidden in the peaceful relgion, but I could show instances of that in most religions. Buddha, that guy got it right though.
Agreed, but the fact remains that religion, particularly Islam in the Middle East and other parts of the world, has an inordinate amount of influence on politics and culture so it makes it extremely difficult for any moderating influences to push down that kind of intolerance. At least in the West we have the separation of church and state with laws and social values that stand on their own secular merits.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So interesting post I just saw on my FB feed. Not saying I take it one way or the other, however one interesting fact to pull from it, there was another mass shooting that was larger in the US. Unfortunately it was a long time ago, and people in America tend to have short memories.
Placing in spoiler.
Spoiler:
THE LARGEST MASS SHOOTING IN US HISTORY HAPPENED December 29,1890. When 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota were murdered by federal agents & members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
The Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.
edit: looks like one of the few sites I could get into on my network debunks the claim somewhat, but still a tragedy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So interesting post I just saw on my FB feed. Not saying I take it one way or the other, however one interesting fact to pull from it, there was another mass shooting that was larger in the US. Unfortunately it was a long time ago, and people in America tend to have short memories. Placing in spoiler.
Spoiler:
THE LARGEST MASS SHOOTING IN US HISTORY HAPPENED December 29,1890. When 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota were murdered by federal agents & members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
The Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.
That is a poltical statement if I have ever seen one. And a manipulation of truth.
The Wounded knee slaughter was lead by an arsehole.
That wasn't a mass shooting, that was a military action if you like it or not. Hence why it does not count as a mass shooting. It is a slaughter, but many do not consider it to be one.
And that is such a bloody political statement.
Them owning guns wouldn't of saved them. That is the dumbest remark I HAVE EVER SEEN.
The Wounded Knee Massacre occurred on December 29, 1890,[5] near Wounded Knee Creek (Lakota: Čhaŋkpé Ópi Wakpála) on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the U.S. state of South Dakota.
The previous day, a detachment of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment commanded by Major Samuel M. Whitside intercepted Spotted Elk's band of Miniconjou Lakota and 38 Hunkpapa Lakota near Porcupine Butte and escorted them 5 miles (8.0 km) westward to Wounded Knee Creek, where they made camp. The remainder of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, led by Colonel James W. Forsyth, arrived and surrounded the encampment. The regiment was supported by a battery of four Hotchkiss mountain guns.[6]
On the morning of December 29, the troops went into the camp to disarm the Lakota. One version of events claims that during the process of disarming the Lakota, a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote was reluctant to give up his rifle, claiming he had paid a lot for it.[7] A scuffle over the rifle escalated, and a shot was fired which resulted in the 7th Cavalry opening fire indiscriminately from all sides, killing men, women, and children, as well as some of their fellow soldiers. The Lakota warriors who still had weapons began shooting back at the attacking soldiers, who quickly suppressed the Lakota fire. The surviving Lakota fled, but cavalrymen pursued and killed many who were unarmed.
By the time it was over, more than 150 men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 were wounded (4 men and 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead at 300.[8] Twenty-five soldiers also died, and 39 were wounded (6 of the wounded later died).[9] At least twenty soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor.[10] In 2001, the National Congress of American Indians passed two resolutions condemning the awards and called on the U.S. government to rescind them.[11] The site of the battlefield has been designated a National Historic Landmark.[5]
Just because someone can write an article does not mean they are entirely reliable and not pushing a political agenda.
The battle or the massacre of wounded knee as after a very tense relations between the Lakota and the United States Military.
There were many other events that lead up to it.
If you want to talk about the greatest slaughter or mass shooting in american history there is something called the American Civil War. As the war and the battle of the wounded knee are infamous for slaughter counts. In recent history this killing of 49 people is still a pretty big deal, as we have not had such a large number of people killed by shootings since Virginia Tech.
redleger wrote: Yea, I edited my statement most likely as you typed it. I already posted on this persons FB page what was wrong with everything about that statement.
Oh thats fine. Just sorta angered me a bit when I read this bit : "Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families."
Yeah that is political agenda.
Don't worry about it. You aren't the one wrong here, that person is.
well I do agree with resisting anyone stripping away the second amendment, and I do agree this person was definitely manipulating the truth. As I have said, I am a law abiding citizen, and always will be, till someone comes in my house, threatens me or my property, even if that person is the Government. Then Ill just be a statistic, and easily forgotten.
But I will not lie, manipulate, or stretch truth to keep a right guaranteed to me and all Americans.
Also, so hard to fact check at work, literally everything is blocked. government network and all.
redleger wrote: well I do agree with resisting anyone stripping away the second amendment, and I do agree this person was definitely manipulating the truth. As I have said, I am a law abiding citizen, and always will be, till someone comes in my house, threatens me or my property, even if that person is the Government. Then Ill just be a statistic, and easily forgotten.
But I will not lie, manipulate, or stretch truth to keep a right guaranteed to me and all Americans.
Wait the last bit what do you mean?
I mean the American Government can technically disarm militia groups if they threaten the security of the nation. Its not an inalienable right, it is a responsbility you can bare arms, as long as it doesn't threaten others. (IE you threaten someone with your gun)
Then the american government and state governments or just the state government has full rights to revoke your right.
As long as you are law abiding you can bare arms, as long as you don't infringe on others rights. Such as their right to live, and their pursuit of happiness.
I'm not in any militia, nor will I ever be. I am regular army, and as active duty, the militia (National Guard) is not my cup of tea. that's another whole discussion though. I will never again, after retirement do any sort of organized drilling or anything close to what I do now.
As far as what I mean, I believe in the second amendment, and why it was put in place. Although I also believe there is a large population that would just roll over if the government ever started stripping rights, I am just not one of them.
redleger wrote: I'm not in any militia, nor will I ever be. I am regular army, and as active duty, the militia (National Guard) is not my cup of tea. that's another whole discussion though. I will never again, after retirement do any sort of organized drilling or anything close to what I do now.
As far as what I mean, I believe in the second amendment, and why it was put in place. Although I also believe there is a large population that would just roll over if the government ever started stripping rights, I am just not one of them.
Yes.. I'm being pedantic, but I think it's worth pointing out.
In the context of the US Constitution 2nd amendment: 'militia' is indistinguishable to 'the people', based on common law, legal statutes and the textualist interpretation.
redleger wrote: well I do agree with resisting anyone stripping away the second amendment, and I do agree this person was definitely manipulating the truth. As I have said, I am a law abiding citizen, and always will be, till someone comes in my house, threatens me or my property, even if that person is the Government. Then Ill just be a statistic, and easily forgotten.
But I will not lie, manipulate, or stretch truth to keep a right guaranteed to me and all Americans.
Wait the last bit what do you mean?
I mean the American Government can technically disarm militia groups if they threaten the security of the nation. Its not an inalienable right, it is a responsbility you can bare arms, as long as it doesn't threaten others. (IE you threaten someone with your gun)
Then the american government and state governments or just the state government has full rights to revoke your right.
As long as you are law abiding you can bare arms, as long as you don't infringe on others rights. Such as their right to live, and their pursuit of happiness.
The constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the right to the pursuit of happiness, that text is in the Declaration of Independence.
Yea, although I believe a peoples militia has the right to exist, and therefore I would not infringe on that, I see no reason for it. The national guard has lower standards. Anyone can join, almost anyway. If you wanna be patriotic, Join the military in some form, give of yourself to your country more than you take.
But a Militia would only be useful in a red dawn scenario ever happened. Although possible, guerilla warfare and an insurgency would be the fight and a militia of old men with guns would be a speed bump.
and we are totally off topic no. Good discussion for another thread though.
I don't disagree with your take on Wahabi influences but it's my understanding that the Saudi royal family has a formal obligation to promote and spread Wahabism and would have difficulty maintaining their power if they didn't do so or acted against Wahabism.
There isn't a formal obligation but there is a close relationship of mutual support dating back a long time. The current generation of Al Saud do not find this quite as useful as before and clearly are taking baby steps to modernise their kingdom.
I mean the American Government can technically disarm militia groups if they threaten the security of the nation. Its not an inalienable right, it is a responsbility you can bare arms, as long as it doesn't threaten others. (IE you threaten someone with your gun)
Then the american government and state governments or just the state government has full rights to revoke your right.
As long as you are law abiding you can bare arms, as long as you don't infringe on others rights. Such as their right to live, and their pursuit of happiness.
And yet, nowhere in the bill of rights is 'responsibility' used. In fact, we don't have a Bill Of Responsibilities, we have a Bill Of Rights. And frankly there is nothing about 'threatening others' which is inherently wrong. If that 'threatening' is done to keep someone from breaking into your house it is a good thing. 'Threatening' with a firearm has and will stop violent acts from being committed. It is when you threaten in an unlawful manner that you get in trouble. And guess what? We have courts and due process to work through all that. The States nor the Feds have a right to revoke or violate a constitutionally protected right (not just the second amendment either). They MUST provide the due process and act in accordance with the constitution (state or federal depending on which is attempting to prosecute).
The Christian would say that threatening others is inherently wrong, but there are limited circumstances in which it can be permitted (e.g. the doctrine of Just War.)
Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.
Dreadwinter wrote: Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.
I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.
Or ya know, dont change it otherwise ALL of them are subject to change.
including the ones everyone likes and needs.
edit: (prestor jon) thats true :/ good luck getting everyone to agree though.
Dreadwinter wrote: Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.
I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.
There is no obstacle standing in the way of amending the constitution and altering the 2nd Amendment other than the will of the people to do so. If enough people want it to change there is a mechanism in place to do so and it works just fine.
Dreadwinter wrote: Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.
I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.
Or ya know, dont change it otherwise ALL of them are subject to change.
including the ones everyone likes and needs.
They're all already subject to change via the amendment process.
Dreadwinter wrote: Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.
I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.
You are correct.
But people uphold it to such a degree that it is quite insulting to the living.
Every government has updated their founding documents if they don't they turn into carthage or rome.....
And we know how well they ended.
It needs to be updated and it is something we need to do, it is a matter of time we scrubbed away the racisim and bigotry that the original document said. Instead of treating it as a religious document it helped found our nation true.
But it is a document that should be changed. By the people for the people. Not because of self poised idealism but because we have to evolve as a country, if we remain stagant in our beliefs then what next? Do we continue to objectively believe ourselves the greatest nation without thinking. We should evolve and become better?
There will come a time when the human mind would of evolved into something greater would we really have a document hold us back from doing that if it was for the betterment of all mankind?
The point I was making was that the bible does not contain passages that promise virgins in paradise for martyrdom and is therefore insufficient as a comparison. The bible might be homophobic but it is generally not commanding holywar or promising virgins for your self sacrifice. Both religions are morally reprehensible but it should be clear to anyone which is more likely to induce suicide killings.
The Qur'an forbids suicide, actually (Sura 4, ayah 29). As do several Hadith (2:23:446, 7:71:670). And neither religion is morally reprehensible, the goal of both (and therefore the focus of most Quranic or Biblical teachings) is for its followers to lead a good and just life with compassion for others. In fact Christianity provides most of the moral and legal groundwork upon which our Western civilisation is based. How much do you even know about Islam or Christianity?
The Quran forbids suicide but codons martyrdom.
As does Christianity. But killing yourself means you are precluded from being a martyr according to classic Islamic law.
Both religions are easily morally reprehensible unless of course you ignore the parts that are immoral. Both are anti gay, anti woman, pro slavery, and pro murder in the name of god. Islam just seems more content to reward you with virgins. You can cherry pick the parts we as westerners consider moral and attribute it to the bible but then how do you justify everything else we consider immoral coming from the same book?
The development of 21st century Western values out of Christianity is a fairly well-researched process actually. But to elaborate on it would get too far off topic. It should be easy to find a book on it if you would really want to know.
Also, neither religion is neccessarily anti-gay, anti women etc. There are several islamic nations where women have full equal rights to men and in some there is even a discussion of whether to allow gay marriage.
(and apparantly even fringe extremists are okay with gay sex as long as you use it to widen your anus so you can fit more explosives in it.: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3158/islam-sodomy )
It is all a matter of interpretation. It is not a religion that is anti-gay, it is people who are. And if people can't draw their condemnation for homosexuality from their religion, they will draw it from somewhere else. If it had anything to do with religon we would have seen it only in religious communities that forbid homosexuality. But instead, we see discrimination of homosexuals in the entire world, in every culture and even in largely secular and irreligious societies. It is people who discriminate, not religions. Religions just do whatever you want them to do depending on how you interpret them.
How much do you really need to know about a religion to be able to know it's gak? A few passages from ether book supporting murder, anti woman, anti gay, or pro slavery - that's enough for me.
You need to know as much as possible. You will never be able to make a ethically sound judgement if you are uninformed. What you are saying is ignorant.
The Second Bill of Rights is a list of rights that was proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944.[1] In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee eight specific rights:
Employment (right to work)
Food, clothing and leisure, via enough income to support them
Farmers' rights to a fair income
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Housing
Medical care
Social security
Education
Roosevelt stated that having these rights would guarantee American security, and that the United States' place in the world depended upon how far these and similar rights had been carried into practice.
But this is SEVERELY offtopic.
We should be talking about the current events, and not whatever we are currently talking about...
IE
The events currently going in Orlando.
There have been two tragedies there.
The killing of a professional singer Christina Grimme
Dreadwinter wrote: Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.
I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.
You are correct.
But people uphold it to such a degree that it is quite insulting to the living.
Every government has updated their founding documents if they don't they turn into carthage or rome.....
And we know how well they ended.
It needs to be updated and it is something we need to do, it is a matter of time we scrubbed away the racisim and bigotry that the original document said. Instead of treating it as a religious document it helped found our nation true.
But it is a document that should be changed. By the people for the people. Not because of self poised idealism but because we have to evolve as a country, if we remain stagant in our beliefs then what next? Do we continue to objectively believe ourselves the greatest nation without thinking. We should evolve and become better?
There will come a time when the human mind would of evolved into something greater would we really have a document hold us back from doing that if it was for the betterment of all mankind?
Dude there is already a process in place within the constitution itself that lets the citizens of the country, through their representative government, make changes to the constitution. It works fine and it's been used 27 different times already. If enough of the citizenry want it changed then it will be changed. If they don't it stays the same.
Frazzled wrote: Yes, please have a Constitutional convention. That will be very interesting. I wonder how many states may decide to skip it and just secede.
If that is their prerogative. Then so be it. If they don't want better living for all people and to have the government evolve and become something better then so be it.
Dude there is already a process in place within the constitution itself that lets the citizens of the country, through their representative government, make changes to the constitution. It works fine and it's been used 27 different times already. If enough of the citizenry want it changed then it will be changed. If they don't it stays the same.
I am well aware, but people don't exercise that right because many don't know it exists. If a system does not accurately represents the views of its constitutes then the system has failed. Not saying it has. But that is something we must be wary of going forward.
And many are unaware of it. I do hope one day we will see people push for something better for this country other than threatening to secede whenever a piece of paper is changed because it is the right thing to do.
Why do you think it would evolve to something better? With today's authoritarian PC/do it for th children/we've got to have security culture, I could see major portions of the Bill of Rights, and separation of powers disappearing.
Frazzled wrote: Why do you think it would evolve to something better? With today's authoritarian PC/do it for th children/we've got to have security culture, I could see major portions of the Bill of Rights, and separation of powers disappearing.
Hmm?
Because the rational people out there know that PC culture is just belligerent people who are just going through a phase. PC culture is slowly dying because it isn't cool or seen as acceptable to step on others rights to free speech.
If we give them the reigns maybe.
But I don't think that will happen. I have more respect for rationality than I do emotionally driven arguments.
Frazzled wrote: Yes, please have a Constitutional convention. That will be very interesting. I wonder how many states may decide to skip it and just secede.
Frazzled wrote: Yes, please have a Constitutional convention. That will be very interesting. I wonder how many states may decide to skip it and just secede.
Well, we know Texas is planning on it....
You can keep the debt. We'll keep the TexMex. Mmm Mexico you sure got a purty mouth...
Greater Texas, From the Red River to Panama City! Vive! Texas! lalalalalalal
Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use.
Let's go back to 1791 a moment
"This is a gun."
"What's it do?"
"Well if it hits you in the arm or leg, you'll generally lose the limb and probably also die. If it hits you in the torso, you almost certainly die."
And all this in an era where multibarrel, revolving, and repeating weapons were (to various extents) in existence, and things like body armor and medical response were...let's be generous and say "Basic" for now.
Yea I'm totally sure that these guys just flat out had no concept of what they were putting to paper.
d-usa wrote: If you continue to ignore the rest of a quoted post just so you can make random points, you light as well stop responding to me and waste the time of everyone that has to read your pointless replies.
No. Claiming that no one would go to a bar except to drink is a hilariously dumb claim. I mean, gak, I've gone to bars and not touched alcohol plenty of times; sometimes people are the designated driver. If you really want to double down with it, fine. Trying to weasel out of having said it isn't going to work, though.
I am well aware, but people don't exercise that right because many don't know it exists. If a system does not accurately represents the views of its constitutes then the system has failed. Not saying it has. But that is something we must be wary of going forward.
And many are unaware of it. I do hope one day we will see people push for something better for this country other than threatening to secede whenever a piece of paper is changed because it is the right thing to do.
Individual citizens don't need to be 'aware of it,' because it's not like they just stand on their desks at work one day and declare a constitutional convention.
Nobody in the political realm has made a move to alter or remove the Second because it has broad support among the American public, as shown in poll after poll after poll. There is nowhere near a majority in favor of getting rid of it.
Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use.
Yea I'm totally sure that these guys just flat out had no concept of what they were putting to paper.
Well first off, that is not what I said. Nor is it implied by the snippet you quoted. What I said is that weaponry has changed since 1791 to a great extent, if your arguing against that, well then I really don't have much to say to you because that is an absurd argument.
To be honest I am not even sure why you are bringing up medical treatment for a gunshot wound. A shot to the head or a vital area will still kill you the same as it would in 1791, but now you can fire way faster with way more bullets and effectively increase your odds of hitting one of these vital areas. Remember, guns changed, not human anatomy!
Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use.
Yea I'm totally sure that these guys just flat out had no concept of what they were putting to paper.
Well first off, that is not what I said. Nor is it implied by the snippet you quoted. What I said is that weaponry has changed since 1791 to a great extent, if your arguing against that, well then I really don't have much to say to you because that is an absurd argument.
To be honest I am not even sure why you are bringing up medical treatment for a gunshot wound. A shot to the head or a vital area will still kill you the same as it would in 1791, but now you can fire way faster with way more bullets and effectively increase your odds of hitting one of these vital areas. Remember, guns changed, not human anatomy!
So free press should only be related to the following?
d-usa wrote: If you continue to ignore the rest of a quoted post just so you can make random points, you light as well stop responding to me and waste the time of everyone that has to read your pointless replies.
No. Claiming that no one would go to a bar except to drink is a hilariously dumb claim. I mean, gak, I've gone to bars and not touched alcohol plenty of times; sometimes people are the designated driver. If you really want to double down with it, fine. Trying to weasel out of having said it isn't going to work, though.
So it's not that you are dishonest in your selective quoting to score a point in an Internet argument, it's just that you can't read and comprehend a post?
Either case, better to just put me on ignore than to waste our time. This is twice now in two different threads that you managed to completely miss or ignore the content of posts to try to score a point, and twice that it made you look foolish.
Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use.
Yea I'm totally sure that these guys just flat out had no concept of what they were putting to paper.
Well first off, that is not what I said. Nor is it implied by the snippet you quoted. What I said is that weaponry has changed since 1791 to a great extent, if your arguing against that, well then I really don't have much to say to you because that is an absurd argument.
To be honest I am not even sure why you are bringing up medical treatment for a gunshot wound. A shot to the head or a vital area will still kill you the same as it would in 1791, but now you can fire way faster with way more bullets and effectively increase your odds of hitting one of these vital areas. Remember, guns changed, not human anatomy!
So free press should only be related to the following?
Dreadwinter wrote: Maybe we shouldn't treat a 227 year old document that was drafted in a different era of weaponry as if it were a religious document. Maybe we should adapt it to fit the current state of the world and the weaponry we use. I think the founding fathers would be freaking out if they saw we were using the same document they drafted at the birth of our nation to attempt to govern in a world that is drastically different.
I dunno, just spitballing ideas here.
That "277 year old document" is the reason why many of us able to have this discussion without getting arrested for "hate speech"
The Bill of Rights are enshrined because they are not granted by majoritarianism, those in power, or the Constitution itself. In other words, the Bill of Rights are necessary to secure the inalienable rights we are bestowed upon by virtue of birth: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
You can Amend the Constitution to remove one or more of the Bill of Rights, but it won't erase the fact that the people still possess those rights. In fact, repealing of any of the Bill of Rights stamps a mark of illegitimacy on the government.
). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.
.
)
