Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.

Alternatively if America had any meaningful gun control, hadn't been getting involved in the middle east for years, etc, tens or even hundreds of thousands of people would be alive this morning, and this type of attack would be far less likely.

But then again, if wishes were horses we would all be eating steak...

Alternatively more massive damage could have been done with 100 dollars worth of gasoline.

 Smacks wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
There is no problem with islam, rather there is a problem with the culture and attitudes of the people in a number of islamic countries which will only ever solve itself if the region becomes politically and economically stable.

It's worth mentioning that there is some evidence that a religious upbringing with Islamic values, actually protects young men from being radicalised. Fighters and suicide bombers like many extremists, are characteristically young men (underachievers) who feel marginalized and angry.

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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
However, I don't see the harm in limiting high-capacity mags,

What do you deem "high capacity"? Standard capacity for many modern rifles is 30 rounds. So are you against anything higher than that?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
certain assault-weapon characteristics,

"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
and large ammunition transactions

What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?

I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.

I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the populace to commit an armed uprising against the government - in the event it becomes tyrannical. This might sound crazy to you living in such a stable country now but take a look at history and what can happen when a radical government takes control of it's people. I'm pretty sure the US government has tanks, aircraft, automatic weapons, machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, anti tank weapons, anti aircraft weapons, artillery, and much more. An AR-15 with a large stock of ammo is the bare minimum you'd need to start an effective resistance. There is an element of cool factor involved for sure but the overwhelming majority of these people believe it is their civic duty to own weapons and stocks of ammo like this. I assure you these people are not the problem.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

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.

 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:

 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?

 redleger wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 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.

You aren't the only one .

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

 d-usa wrote:
Muslims: 1,600,000,000
ISIS (highest guess): 300,000
Percentage of Muslims who are part of ISIS: 0.02%

If we use the somewhere in the middle rule with this link - we have a pretty big number here.
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/isis-has-least-42-million-supporters-arab-world