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.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

 redleger wrote:

 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 ?

 Smacks wrote:

 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:

 redleger wrote:

 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.

 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?

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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 .

Frazzled wrote:

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.

2. http://www.newsmax.com/US/mateen-orlando-nightclub-saudi-arabia/2016/06/13/id/733568/

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 feeder wrote:

CptJake wrote:1. 2nd generation are more prone to radicalization.

2. http://www.newsmax.com/US/mateen-orlando-nightclub-saudi-arabia/2016/06/13/id/733568/

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.

 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.

Looking at the big picture, this guy is just as representative of Islam as he is of US citizens who own guns.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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.

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.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

Shhh, you. I hate Islam and love guns. I'm gonna forge a narrative like Odin forged Mjolnir.

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.


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 .

 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.

 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.

 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.

 feeder wrote:

 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.

And ISIL attacks across it, even in Asia now.

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

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.

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

although your math is correct, many support the ideals, without active participation, which is a number no one knows.

 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.

 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

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.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/officials-hunt-for-details-from-orlando-shooting-1465823030

Visited Saudi Arabia in 2011 and 2013.