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.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


I should've been more specific. I meant Syrian "refugees" . And that information comes from the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees, who stated the 62% of Syrian "refugees" are military age, able-bodied males..

How dare those men, who given their age are probably single anyway, flee a bloody warzone before they were conscripted!

 Vaktathi wrote:
gun control

As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll.

Indeed.

Not everyone agrees that the 2nd amendment is worth as many lives as it costs, even if both sides have their points.

I only hope it will be a long time before something like this happens again, but given the trend that is not likely.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


How dare those men, who given their age are probably single anyway, flee a bloody warzone before they were conscripted!

When they cause problems in the host countries, then yes, it's an issue. And many of them are deserters. And ISIS has been known to infiltrate operatives in the wave of refugees heading to Europe. The terror attacks in Europe since the crisis began bears this out. "MUH FEELZ" doesn't belong in deciding what to do in such instances, like it has in Europe to date.

As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll.

So you think. And I won't get into this flawed line of thinking.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.

Like during the ISIS attacks in France, where they were forced to rely on single-shot weapons.

Single shot is limited by only rate you can pull it. And a trained user can be fast. They can still do harm without full auto..

 Ouze wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Agreed. But I'll point out that Obama has ALREADY called for "tougher laws" relating to access to handguns and so-called "assault weapons", in the wake of this tragedy, according to Time-Warner News.


I agree with others that this isn't the time and place for political posturing, but sympathy for the victims. But politicians are slime, regardless of their political affiliation.

I hope this isn't true.

But is it really the fault of the politicians who spout the usual rhetoric, or the voters who fall for it? Where does the circle start?

 jhe90 wrote:
Single shot is limited by only rate you can pull it. And a trained user can be fast. They can still do harm without full auto..

I believe that Seaward was being sarcastic: it is my understanding that the firearms used in the Bataclan and other IS attacks in France were illegal under French law.

There is a great deal of confusion about the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic"; automatic means that the firearm will continue to discharge, one round after another, as long as the trigger is pulled. Semi-Automatic means that for each 'pull' there is a single round discharged.

Edit: according to this article, the guns used were AK-47s and not legally available in France.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Single shot is limited by only rate you can pull it. And a trained user can be fast. They can still do harm without full auto..

I believe that Seaward was being sarcastic: it is my understanding that the firearms used in the Bataclan and other IS attacks in France were illegal under French law.

There is a great deal of confusion about the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic"; automatic means that the firearm will continue to discharge, one round after another, as long as the trigger is pulled. Semi-Automatic means that for each 'pull' there is a single round discharged.

I know. Semi auto if you depress and hold will only fire once . Full auto will use the gas and via mechanism fire a second, and a third.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.

Automatic weapons are tightly restricted in the US. A legal fully automatic weapon in this country starts at around $9,500 or so and goes up quickly. So far as I know, there has never been a mass shooting with a legal automatic weapon, although I know of at least one bank robbery with illegally converted ones. Legal automatic weapons in the US are very rare. They are not a factor in either spree killing or crime, regardless of what you see in the movies.

Moving on to semi-autos, there are still some problems there. For one, even if you totally banned all sales of them tomorrow - which the country definitely doesn't want to do - what do you do with the tens of millions lying around currently?

 Ouze wrote:
what do you do with the tens of millions lying around currently?

A new chair for the Oval Office?

Now I have a visual of someone bending the knee while laying down an AR15 before it.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Spoiler:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:


Edit:

It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Huh? How is that either 'telling' or relevant to the discussion? Is the implication that mainstream Christianity is aptly represented by attitudes in Uganda?

It has failed to provide a comparison to the overall population attitudes of any of the countries examined. To use Uganda as an example it may be found that the overall attitude to homosexuality of the general population is similar or perhaps even worse than that of the muslim population.

First, that's a silly objection given that a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries, and thus the 'general population' is the Moslem population. Second, there is no bias implied in not surveying everyone: it's a survey of the attitudes currently held by Moslems, surveying others is unrelated to its purpose.

84% of the population in Uganda is Christian. You're really not helping yourself out of the hole that you've dug for yourself.

Do tell, what exactly is the "whole that 'I've' dug"? In the survey I was referring to, was it not the case that "a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries"?

Are you seriously advocating that there is no widespread, violent antipathy towards homosexuals in Islam? Or are you simply doing a bit of a troll drive by?

You're ignoring the large part of the example that's majority Christian because it doesn't fit your narrative, hand-waving away any objections. You start off by using bad data to make a bad argument, and when you're called out on it you double down. You obviously have an axe to grind with Islam. You're further assuming that correlation implies causation and arguing for a causal link without providing evidence of such a link existing. You didn't even stop to consider alternative explanations, like the fact that excepting Russia and Turkey all the countries in the example are poor, third-world countries. You just jumped straight to the conclusion that you already knew you wanted, which is that Islam is bad. To top it off, you end your post with a blatant strawman. You're just digging deeper.

Seaward wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.

Like during the ISIS attacks in France, where they were forced to rely on single-shot weapons.

Single shot? Afaik they all had full-auto assault rifles that had been illegally converted from decomissioned Chechoslovak and Yugoslav military weapons.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Spoiler:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:


Edit:

It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Huh? How is that either 'telling' or relevant to the discussion? Is the implication that mainstream Christianity is aptly represented by attitudes in Uganda?

It has failed to provide a comparison to the overall population attitudes of any of the countries examined. To use Uganda as an example it may be found that the overall attitude to homosexuality of the general population is similar or perhaps even worse than that of the muslim population.

First, that's a silly objection given that a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries, and thus the 'general population' is the Moslem population. Second, there is no bias implied in not surveying everyone: it's a survey of the attitudes currently held by Moslems, surveying others is unrelated to its purpose.

84% of the population in Uganda is Christian. You're really not helping yourself out of the hole that you've dug for yourself.

Do tell, what exactly is the "whole that 'I've' dug"? In the survey I was referring to, was it not the case that "a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries"?

Are you seriously advocating that there is no widespread, violent antipathy towards homosexuals in Islam? Or are you simply doing a bit of a troll drive by?

You're ignoring the large part of the example that's majority Christian because it doesn't fit your narrative, hand-waving away any objections. You start off by using bad data to make a bad argument, and when you're called out on it you double down. You obviously have an axe to grind with Islam. You're further assuming that correlation implies causation and arguing for a causal link without providing evidence of such a link existing. You didn't even stop to consider alternative explanations, like the fact that excepting Russia and Turkey all the countries in the example are poor, third-world countries. You just jumped straight to the conclusion that you already knew you wanted, which is that Islam is bad. To top it off, you end your post with a blatant strawman. You're just digging deeper.

Strawman?

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/06/12/orlando-night-club-attack-by-known-wolf-terrorist-previously-investigated-by-fbi/

Imam Speaking in Orlando Said Gays Must Be Killed Out of 'Compassion'




Example after example after example is provided in real life. In every country in the world. How many more examples do you need before anecdotes become trends?

 jhe90 wrote:
Single shot is limited by only rate you can pull it.

Yeah, that's not even kind of true.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I believe that Seaward was being sarcastic: it is my understanding that the firearms used in the Bataclan and other IS attacks in France were illegal under French law.

That's exactly what Seaward was being. The idea that Islamic extremists would not be able to carry out attacks like these if AR-15s were banned in the US is pretty hilarious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Single shot? Afaik they all had full-auto assault rifles that had been illegally converted from decomissioned Chechoslovak and Yugoslav military weapons.

No, that's impossible, because France has strong gun laws.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Single shot is limited by only rate you can pull it. And a trained user can be fast. They can still do harm without full auto..

I believe that Seaward was being sarcastic: it is my understanding that the firearms used in the Bataclan and other IS attacks in France were illegal under French law.

There is a great deal of confusion about the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic"; automatic means that the firearm will continue to discharge, one round after another, as long as the trigger is pulled. Semi-Automatic means that for each 'pull' there is a single round discharged.

I know. Semi auto if you depress and hold will only fire once . Full auto will use the gas and via mechanism fire a second, and a third.

About that rate of fire...

Seaward wrote:
No, that's impossible, because France has strong gun laws.

On the other hand, if the only people shooting up the place are dedicated terrorists, rather than any Tom, Dick, or Harry getting hold of a gun and blowing away their classmates, random people on the interstate, etc, then I think your gun laws are probably pretty good...

 Breotan wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Spoiler:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:


Edit:

It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Huh? How is that either 'telling' or relevant to the discussion? Is the implication that mainstream Christianity is aptly represented by attitudes in Uganda?

It has failed to provide a comparison to the overall population attitudes of any of the countries examined. To use Uganda as an example it may be found that the overall attitude to homosexuality of the general population is similar or perhaps even worse than that of the muslim population.

First, that's a silly objection given that a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries, and thus the 'general population' is the Moslem population. Second, there is no bias implied in not surveying everyone: it's a survey of the attitudes currently held by Moslems, surveying others is unrelated to its purpose.

84% of the population in Uganda is Christian. You're really not helping yourself out of the hole that you've dug for yourself.

Do tell, what exactly is the "whole that 'I've' dug"? In the survey I was referring to, was it not the case that "a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries"?

Are you seriously advocating that there is no widespread, violent antipathy towards homosexuals in Islam? Or are you simply doing a bit of a troll drive by?

You're ignoring the large part of the example that's majority Christian because it doesn't fit your narrative, hand-waving away any objections. You start off by using bad data to make a bad argument, and when you're called out on it you double down. You obviously have an axe to grind with Islam. You're further assuming that correlation implies causation and arguing for a causal link without providing evidence of such a link existing. You didn't even stop to consider alternative explanations, like the fact that excepting Russia and Turkey all the countries in the example are poor, third-world countries. You just jumped straight to the conclusion that you already knew you wanted, which is that Islam is bad. To top it off, you end your post with a blatant strawman. You're just digging deeper.

Strawman?

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/06/12/orlando-night-club-attack-by-known-wolf-terrorist-previously-investigated-by-fbi/

Imam Speaking in Orlando Said Gays Must Be Killed Out of 'Compassion'




Example after example after example is provided in real life. In every country in the world. How many more examples do you need before anecdotes become trends?

Yes, Strawman. Where am I saying that there isn't a "widespread, violent apathy towards homosexuals in Islam"? Do note that questioning causes is not the same as denying the problem.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
...

You're ignoring the large part of the example that's majority Christian because it doesn't fit your narrative, hand-waving away any objections. You start off by using bad data to make a bad argument, and when you're called out on it you double down. You obviously have an axe to grind with Islam. You're further assuming that correlation implies causation and arguing for a causal link without providing evidence of such a link existing. You didn't even stop to consider alternative explanations, like the fact that excepting Russia and Turkey all the countries in the example are poor, third-world countries. You just jumped straight to the conclusion that you already knew you wanted, which is that Islam is bad. To top it off, you end your post with a blatant strawman. You're just digging deeper.

In fact, I am doing none of those things, and your intellectual dishonesty is jaw dropping.

I don't even know where to start, it's not even that what you're saying is wrong, but hallucinatory. Correlation and causation have nothing to do with my point, nor have I argued for any thing other then the recognition of the facts... which you don't deny. My sole point was that Muslim migrants from the middle east are overwhelmingly likely to harbor both antisemitic and homophobic views. Which is a fact.

Your posts regarding mine have been noting irrelevancies and congratulating yourself on your cleverness.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
On the other hand, if the only people shooting up the place are dedicated terrorists, rather than any Tom, Dick, or Harry getting hold of a gun and blowing away their classmates, random people on the interstate, etc, then I think your gun laws are probably pretty good...

Well, that's not true even in France, but it seems a roundabout way of admitting that French-style gun laws wouldn't have prevented this dedicated terrorist from pulling off this attack.

So, can I interject a break in the arguments here, and ask if anyone has new news on this?

Last I heard, ISIS is claiming responsibility, and the shooter called 911 multiple times prior to the attack, stating his allegiance to ISIS.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
gun control

As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.

Find me an instance of a legally civilian owned *automatic* weapon being used in one of these incidents and I'll eat a hat and film it. Semi automatic covers an extremely wide array of weapons, basically anything newer than the 19th century that doesnt have to be manually reloaded after every trigger pull, from Mauser C96's and Garand rifles up through something like an FN SCAR, it's a broad and vague definiton in much the same way that say, "eletronic communications" covers everything from the Telegraph through phones and tv up through cell phones and GPS and email.

The dude was also a licensed and screened security guard who, as such, ostensibly could have access to such weapons in many nations where firearms are beyond the reach of the general public in an equivalent job.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
...

You're ignoring the large part of the example that's majority Christian because it doesn't fit your narrative, hand-waving away any objections. You start off by using bad data to make a bad argument, and when you're called out on it you double down. You obviously have an axe to grind with Islam. You're further assuming that correlation implies causation and arguing for a causal link without providing evidence of such a link existing. You didn't even stop to consider alternative explanations, like the fact that excepting Russia and Turkey all the countries in the example are poor, third-world countries. You just jumped straight to the conclusion that you already knew you wanted, which is that Islam is bad. To top it off, you end your post with a blatant strawman. You're just digging deeper.

In fact, I am doing none of those things, and your intellectual dishonesty is jaw dropping.

I don't even know where to start, it's not even that what you're saying is wrong, but hallucinatory. Correlation and causation have nothing to do with my point, nor have I argued for any thing other then the recognition of the facts... which you don't deny. My sole point was that Muslim migrants from the middle east are overwhelmingly likely to harbor both antisemitic and homophobic views. Which is a fact.

Your posts regarding mine have been noting irrelevancies and congratulating yourself on your cleverness.

I'm dragging the thread violently off-topic, so I'll stop, suffice to say I don't agree with you though.

 djones520 wrote:
So, can I interject a break in the arguments here, and ask if anyone has new news on this?

Last I heard, ISIS is claiming responsibility, and the shooter called 911 multiple times prior to the attack, stating his allegiance to ISIS.

^ This. While we all love a good 2nd amendment thread, can we try to keep this to providing news about a situation that is still very very fresh. We still do not know all the details yet, even so far as what weapons were used. Lets cool our jets.

Seaward wrote:
Well, that's not true even in France,

Well, the easiest to find data I could find was from 2012, but it has France with 32 gun homicides and the USA with 9,146. So I would still say their gun laws are working pretty well.

but it seems a roundabout way of admitting that French-style gun laws wouldn't have prevented this dedicated terrorist from pulling off this attack.

It was in fact a pretty explicit statement that "French-style gun laws" wouldn't have stopped dedicated terrorists from pulling off this attack. Because dedicated terrorists typically are importing weapons and fighters from places where there are plenty of guns, are well funded and equipped, and have the backing of large organisations dedicated to carring out these kinds of things. While Joe Bloggs who snaps and decides that he hates the people at work... doesn't have any of those things... and so if there are no guns laying around won't be able to go out and shoot anyone...

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

So you think.

So I know, its all down to rate of fire. You could of course be delusional enough to think that an AR 15 has the same rate of fire as a bolt action rifle....

 Vaktathi wrote:
basically anything newer than the 19th century that doesnt have to be manually reloaded after every trigger pull

That's all you need for hunting and the like, it would also do for 'self defence'.

I'm sure the usual suspects will defend their right to bear arms with their 'cold dead hands' but I am sick and tired of dozens more people paying the price for hubris. This kind of craziness happens far, far too often.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.

No it wouldn't, because the shooter would have had one anyway. He was a licensed security guard - he's up there with police and the military among people who would be deliberately excluded from any attack on people's Second Amendment rights.

A rather twisted irony that I've just realised.

Assuming that the rules regarding blood donation are roughly similar to here, even though any rush for blood donations (to help victims) will be due to an attack on a gay club, gay people will be forbidden to donate.

 Goliath wrote:

Assuming that the rules regarding blood donation are roughly similar to here, even though any rush for blood donations (to help victims) will be due to an attack on a gay club, gay people will be forbidden to donate.

Not anymore, its no longer a lifetime ban although donors couldn't have had sex with a gay man for 12 months prior to donation.

 AlexHolker wrote:

No it wouldn't, because the shooter would have had one anyway. He was a licensed security guard - he's up there with police and the military among people who would be deliberately excluded from any attack on people's Second Amendment rights.

Arming security guards.......what a great idea.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Well, that's not true even in France,

Well, the easiest to find data I could find was from 2012, but it has France with 32 gun homicides and the USA with 9,146. So I would still say their gun laws are working pretty well.

C'mon, correlation does not imply causation.

Is there a Dakka bingo square for that? I'm getting the feeling there should be...