INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: Yuri Bezmenov on June 12, 2016, 12:25:30 PM
-
(http://i.memecaptain.com/gend_images/hcZXLw.jpg)
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/50-slain-in-gay-nightclub-worst-mass-shooting-in-us-history/ar-AAgW3Wb?ocid=spartanntp
-
Meanwhile in London, there's a planned night time vigil for the victims in Orlando and the streets are packed already. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/orlando-gay-bar-shooting-victims-london-soho-vigil-solidarity-a7079941.html)
Meet hate with love.
Meet intolerance with forgiveness.
Peace out.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck2XbfCWYAAhU3o.jpg:large)
-
Not personally the forgiving type, but that's awesome. Thanks for posting that, FourAceDeal.
-
(http://i.memecaptain.com/gend_images/hcZXLw.jpg)
What's your point? Did you have one?
-
Pappy has used a similar thread title and southpark meme for a few high visibility news threads.
-
Still wondering if he's got an actual point.
-
Still wondering if he's got an actual point.
Maybe nothing more than a cliché trope. Though it's become a bit of a news thread signature, distinctly Pappy. Jack approves.
-
Still wondering if he's got an actual point.
Maybe nothing more than a cliché trope. Though it's become a bit of a news thread signature, distinctly Pappy. Jack approves.
^this.
Officer Barbrady always reacted to the most traumatic scenes with that line.
-
Fair enough. Missed the reference since I haven't seen the show.
-
It's a lot older than southpark and very cliché. Never heard it? How about, show's over move along? Maybe just an American thing, gawkers.
-
The problem is, the show isn't over. Far from it. :(
-
True. The politicians will have a "field day," for years to come.
The political posturing started within hours of the event.
>:(
-
The problem is, the show isn't over. Far from it. :(
That's why it's a trope.
-
I cannot for the life of me understand Clinton's talking point about it being a gun problem.
A) Sure as He'll made no difference to Paris attack, that they had a gun ban
b) how does that change things? Make criminals more gun conscious?
C) is the Obama/Clinton ban to ramp up Muslim immigration going to help this and if so how?
I don't know if Trumps Muslim immigration plan is feasible or practical but it seems to better identify a threat.
-
A couple of interesting things to think about:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/ (http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-votes-to-tighten-visa-waiver-program-1449613891
The threat has been identified in the past; why not now?
-
The comparison with the Paris attacks is an odd one--that one was a well-planned attack, carried out by a terror organisation cell. The Orlando attack was the act of a loner, a US citizen who bought the weapon legally, no questions asked, in spite of having been previously questioned by the FBI.
Of course it's a gun problem.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-remarks-gun-control-hauntingly-000000581.html
-
I'm wasting no more time discussing it. From now on I'll see it as a particularly sad form of Darwinism.
-
The comparison with the Paris attacks is an odd one--that one was a well-planned attack, carried out by a terror organisation cell. The Orlando attack was the act of a loner, a US citizen who bought the weapon legally, no questions asked, in spite of having been previously questioned by the FBI.
Of course it's a gun problem.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-remarks-gun-control-hauntingly-000000581.html
It was from a radicalised Muslim man on behalf of ISIS (that is that he did this based on what he thought would please them and they were so pleased and took credit for it).
BUT he used a gun. So what?
Paris http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994
Brussels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings
Rotherham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
Cologne http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3408033/Muslim-cleric-says-Cologne-sex-attacks-victims-fault-wore-PERFUME.html
Cause and effect. Ascribing the wrong cause is almost as harmful as excusing it
Like this bloke https://www.rt.com/news/338779-somalian-refugee-raped-politician/
Just a gun problem. No. It is an ideological problem. It is NOT a gun problem or a toxic masculinity problem as some Feminists were happier labeling it. It is a problem with radicalised Muslims committing terrorist actions on behalf of a horrible ideology.
End of.
Now Hillary Clinton believes that increasing 500% the amount of Syrian Muslims immigrants into America is a great idea. Trump thinks placing a freeze on immigration of Muslims and folks from Muslim dominant countries is the way to go.
I think Trump is being rational but I don't think his immigration policy would be easily implemented or adhered to. It is something though.
Of course one could say, "Why are they displaced from their country in the first place and as a result of who's actions? Surely not the countries they are immigrating to? If they are immigrating there are they likely to be happy with the host country or not? But that is an entirely different point.
-
The Orlando shooter was a nutjob. Yes, ISIS took credit, understandably, but their actual involvement is questionable. It is as likely that he was a homophobic and/or in the proverbial closet, considering that he was known in there.
The fact is that this nutjob, as so many other nutjobs on shooting sprees in the US, could legally obtain their weapons. How many of these tragedies could have been avoided simply by making them just a tiny little bit harder to obtain?
The number homicides per 100,000 population in France in 2012 was 0.21. It was 3.43 in the US in 2014. Of course it's a gun problem.
-
The fact is that this nutjob, as so many other nutjobs on shooting sprees in the US, could legally obtain their weapons. How many of these tragedies could have been avoided simply by making them just a tiny little bit harder to obtain?
Probably the same number who couldn't get alcohol as a result of prohibition in the 1920's. AFAIK that number was a grand total of 0 people.
The number homicides per 100,000 population in France in 2012 was 0.21. It was 3.43 in the US in 2014. Of course it's a nigger problem.
Fixed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
-
The Orlando shooter was a nutjob. Yes, ISIS took credit, understandably, but their actual involvement is questionable. It is as likely that he was a homophobic and/or in the proverbial closet, considering that he was known in there.
The fact is that this nutjob, as so many other nutjobs on shooting sprees in the US, could legally obtain their weapons. How many of these tragedies could have been avoided simply by making them just a tiny little bit harder to obtain?
The number homicides per 100,000 population in France in 2012 was 0.21. It was 3.43 in the US in 2014. Of course it's a gun problem.
Leave them to it. They're not worth the breathe you expend typing a retort. Darwinism. Simple as.
-
The Orlando shooter was a nutjob. Yes, ISIS took credit, understandably, but their actual involvement is questionable. It is as likely that he was a homophobic and/or in the proverbial closet, considering that he was known in there.
The fact is that this nutjob, as so many other nutjobs on shooting sprees in the US, could legally obtain their weapons. How many of these tragedies could have been avoided simply by making them just a tiny little bit harder to obtain?
The number homicides per 100,000 population in France in 2012 was 0.21. It was 3.43 in the US in 2014. Of course it's a gun problem.
Except of course for the fact that he was radicalised through Abu Taubah and the radicalised teachings of this Iman. That combined with his visits to Afghanistan, and pledging his allegiance to ISIS.
But guns and nutjob work well too. He was a crazy homophobe with access to guns. Let's not think too hard on it.
-
The Orlando shooter was a nutjob. Yes, ISIS took credit, understandably, but their actual involvement is questionable. It is as likely that he was a homophobic and/or in the proverbial closet, considering that he was known in there.
The fact is that this nutjob, as so many other nutjobs on shooting sprees in the US, could legally obtain their weapons. How many of these tragedies could have been avoided simply by making them just a tiny little bit harder to obtain?
The number homicides per 100,000 population in France in 2012 was 0.21. It was 3.43 in the US in 2014. Of course it's a gun problem.
Leave them to it. They're not worth the breathe you expend typing a retort. Darwinism. Simple as.
Leave who to what exactly? Rather than sniping, how about having enough confidence in your own opinions and values to challenge them? Would your ego survive that?
-
The Orlando shooter was a nutjob. Yes, ISIS took credit, understandably, but their actual involvement is questionable. It is as likely that he was a homophobic and/or in the proverbial closet, considering that he was known in there.
The fact is that this nutjob, as so many other nutjobs on shooting sprees in the US, could legally obtain their weapons. How many of these tragedies could have been avoided simply by making them just a tiny little bit harder to obtain?
The number homicides per 100,000 population in France in 2012 was 0.21. It was 3.43 in the US in 2014. Of course it's a gun problem.
Except of course for the fact that he was radicalised through Abu Taubah and the radicalised teachings of this Iman. That combined with his visits to Afghanistan, and pledging his allegiance to ISIS.
But guns and nutjob work well too. He was a crazy homophobe with access to guns. Let's not think too hard on it.
The news media in my country is not yet confirming any of that. The trips, the Iman, the ISIS pledge being anything more than an excuse after it started.
-
The comparison with the Paris attacks is an odd one--that one was a well-planned attack, carried out by a terror organisation cell. The Orlando attack was the act of a loner, a US citizen who bought the weapon legally, no questions asked, in spite of having been previously questioned by the FBI.
Of course it's a gun problem.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-remarks-gun-control-hauntingly-000000581.html
Obama stating it's impossible to keep suspected terrorist from obtaining guns is currently true, but about 80% of domestic terrorism acts in the US are bombings and arson with guns accounting for about 5% of methodology. It strikes as a scare tactic to promote an agenda when an honest approach would be more meaningful; not sure exactly what gets a person on the watch list but understand it's a lot more than ISIS sympathizers. The US has an eclectic history of domestic terrorism from right wing, left wing, racial, religious, animal and environmental, etc...extremists of every breed who sometimes act as organized and some lone. Every terrorist act carries a sub-set of the population who nod in agreement. Muslim terrorist are no different.
-
Leave them to it. They're not worth the breathe you expend typing a retort. Darwinism. Simple as.
But I like Odeon's breath. It smells like coffee. :zoinks:
-
The fact is that this nutjob, as so many other nutjobs on shooting sprees in the US, could legally obtain their weapons. How many of these tragedies could have been avoided simply by making them just a tiny little bit harder to obtain?
Probably the same number who couldn't get alcohol as a result of prohibition in the 1920's. AFAIK that number was a grand total of 0 people.
The number homicides per 100,000 population in France in 2012 was 0.21. It was 3.43 in the US in 2014. Of course it's a nigger problem.
Yeah, it make so much more sense to allow anyone access to weapons.
Fixed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
-
The Orlando shooter was a nutjob. Yes, ISIS took credit, understandably, but their actual involvement is questionable. It is as likely that he was a homophobic and/or in the proverbial closet, considering that he was known in there.
The fact is that this nutjob, as so many other nutjobs on shooting sprees in the US, could legally obtain their weapons. How many of these tragedies could have been avoided simply by making them just a tiny little bit harder to obtain?
The number homicides per 100,000 population in France in 2012 was 0.21. It was 3.43 in the US in 2014. Of course it's a gun problem.
Except of course for the fact that he was radicalised through Abu Taubah and the radicalised teachings of this Iman. That combined with his visits to Afghanistan, and pledging his allegiance to ISIS.
But guns and nutjob work well too. He was a crazy homophobe with access to guns. Let's not think too hard on it.
Yeah, let's avoid any thoughts that could help avoid the next one.
-
The comparison with the Paris attacks is an odd one--that one was a well-planned attack, carried out by a terror organisation cell. The Orlando attack was the act of a loner, a US citizen who bought the weapon legally, no questions asked, in spite of having been previously questioned by the FBI.
Of course it's a gun problem.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-remarks-gun-control-hauntingly-000000581.html
Obama stating it's impossible to keep suspected terrorist from obtaining guns is currently true, but about 80% of domestic terrorism acts in the US are bombings and arson with guns accounting for about 5% of methodology. It strikes as a scare tactic to promote an agenda when an honest approach would be more meaningful; not sure exactly what gets a person on the watch list but understand it's a lot more than ISIS sympathizers. The US has an eclectic history of domestic terrorism from right wing, left wing, racial, religious, animal and environmental, etc...extremists of every breed who sometimes act as organized and some lone. Every terrorist act carries a sub-set of the population who nod in agreement. Muslim terrorist are no different.
If you think it's scare tactics you're missing the point which is a simple one, namely that your country needs better gun control.
-
The Orlando shooter was a nutjob. Yes, ISIS took credit, understandably, but their actual involvement is questionable. It is as likely that he was a homophobic and/or in the proverbial closet, considering that he was known in there.
The fact is that this nutjob, as so many other nutjobs on shooting sprees in the US, could legally obtain their weapons. How many of these tragedies could have been avoided simply by making them just a tiny little bit harder to obtain?
The number homicides per 100,000 population in France in 2012 was 0.21. It was 3.43 in the US in 2014. Of course it's a gun problem.
Except of course for the fact that he was radicalised through Abu Taubah and the radicalised teachings of this Iman. That combined with his visits to Afghanistan, and pledging his allegiance to ISIS.
But guns and nutjob work well too. He was a crazy homophobe with access to guns. Let's not think too hard on it.
Yeah, let's avoid any thoughts that could help avoid the next one.
Fuck off, Odeon. THAT is EXACTLY what you are doing.
Firstly: In America there is a different culture relating to gun ownership than Australia or Europe. In America it is a constitutional right and as sacred as any other constitutional right. SO you will NOT be able to prevent people from buying guns nor change attitudes in respect to that. Its part of what makes Americans, Americans.
Secondly: The gun free zones and gun controlled states tend to have the most gun related violence. Why? Again, it may be an American thing but if a criminal or a madman or terrorist (who is probably both of these other categories) decides to use guns (obtained illegally or legally) on people they don't like, are they likely to be least confident (AND "successful") in areas where no one else has guns? Or where any random person can pull out a concealed gun and come out blasting? Imagine you were in a nightclub without a weapon and feeling safe because guns were banned and then some guy walks in with a gun? Doesn't matter at that stage whether they obtained it legally or not.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=robbers+killed+conceal+and+carry
Thirdly: Its a bit like the "Toxic masculinity" arguments that Feminists have. Something like "Well obviously he is a toxic male and full of toxic masculinity. Men glorify violence and are the more violent gender. Men have to stop being violent".
Your argument whilst a little better is not that much better. Guns kill people, so in gun controlled Orlando, Mateen killed a heap of people with a gun. If not for that he would not have used a pipe bomb or arson or anything else.
It was purely a gun problem:
If there was absolutely sanctioning on guns, then criminals won't be able to get them.
They will not have any other reason to be more creative in how they kill.
Their ideology that compels them to be murderous would deplete.
They would all be well-adjusted.
The threat in America would disappear.
Everyone in America would hand over every single gun.
Everyone in America will embrace revoking of the Constitution rights.
Pigs fly
Okay with all of that in mind
Yeah, let's avoid any thoughts that could help avoid the next one.
How would THAT "avoid" the next one. What is the plan? Tell me something practical and not completely ludicrous that buys into your gun control in America narrative.
No? Okay now let's look at this as a wider problem than a crazy homophobe with a gun.
Let's see his motive and whether America is at risk of imminent threat of more Mateens.
Absolutely. San Bernadino and 9/11 are two more examples of terrorist attacks on US soil from terrorists. So there is already a tiny element of US immigrants or second generation immigrants from Muslim countries and many of these people were displaced from their countries of birth or heritage due to US altercations. These are people with hatred to America and its allies and compassion for the Islamic countries from where they were displaced.
So increase surveillance and access to intelligence on these communities in US may help deal with future potential problems BUT what will NOT is Clinton trying to bring in 500% of the current rates of Syrian refugees (When the Intelligence community in America registers that they are unable to confidently screen and vet everyone decently). Freezing Muslim immigration until America can screen more confidently will ABSOLUTELY reduce the potential of more similar attacks.
-
The Orlando shooter was a nutjob. Yes, ISIS took credit, understandably, but their actual involvement is questionable. It is as likely that he was a homophobic and/or in the proverbial closet, considering that he was known in there.
The fact is that this nutjob, as so many other nutjobs on shooting sprees in the US, could legally obtain their weapons. How many of these tragedies could have been avoided simply by making them just a tiny little bit harder to obtain?
The number homicides per 100,000 population in France in 2012 was 0.21. It was 3.43 in the US in 2014. Of course it's a gun problem.
Except of course for the fact that he was radicalised through Abu Taubah and the radicalised teachings of this Iman. That combined with his visits to Afghanistan, and pledging his allegiance to ISIS.
But guns and nutjob work well too. He was a crazy homophobe with access to guns. Let's not think too hard on it.
Yeah, let's avoid any thoughts that could help avoid the next one.
Fuck off, Odeon. THAT is EXACTLY what you are doing.
Pissy because I'm not responding to your callouts any more? Such language.
Have a look at the bold part of what you wrote. That is why I replied with what I did.
Firstly: In America there is a different culture relating to gun ownership than Australia or Europe. In America it is a constitutional right and as sacred as any other constitutional right. SO you will NOT be able to prevent people from buying guns nor change attitudes in respect to that. Its part of what makes Americans, Americans.
Gun ownership is actually not a constitutional right in the US, but it's what NRA would like you to believe. The Second Amendment s about the right to a well-regulated militia, not about every idiot being allowed to buy a semi-automatic (hence the "well-regulated").
But we happen to have a lawyer in our midst. Why not ask him?
Secondly: The gun free zones and gun controlled states tend to have the most gun related violence. Why? Again, it may be an American thing but if a criminal or a madman or terrorist (who is probably both of these other categories) decides to use guns (obtained illegally or legally) on people they don't like, are they likely to be least confident (AND "successful") in areas where no one else has guns? Or where any random person can pull out a concealed gun and come out blasting? Imagine you were in a nightclub without a weapon and feeling safe because guns were banned and then some guy walks in with a gun? Doesn't matter at that stage whether they obtained it legally or not.
It's interesting how the statistics vary, then. The risk of ending up face to face with a nutter with a gun is higher in the US than in, say, the UK. I'd much rather take my chances there because yes, I would feel more safe and the statistics would back me up.
And sure, I'd go with 4Ace's comment about letting them and Darwinism and all that, but there are plenty of Americans I like and would rather not having them killed by the next idiot anytime soon.
Orlando is par for the course, unfortunately. Trump, NRA & Co can label it as terrorism because it will probably make them feel better about their mess, but the fact is that it's not surprising in the least. Paris was surprising, Brussels was surprising. Another nutcase with a legally bought firearm in the US, not surprising in the least. Sad, yes. Surprising, no.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=robbers+killed+conceal+and+carry
Thirdly: Its a bit like the "Toxic masculinity" arguments that Feminists have. Something like "Well obviously he is a toxic male and full of toxic masculinity. Men glorify violence and are the more violent gender. Men have to stop being violent".
Your argument whilst a little better is not that much better. Guns kill people, so in gun controlled Orlando, Mateen killed a heap of people with a gun. If not for that he would not have used a pipe bomb or arson or anything else.
A legally obtained gun, bought the previous week. You don't think there is a problem with that?
It was purely a gun problem:
Not purely, but it was a gun problem, yes.
If there was absolutely sanctioning on guns, then criminals won't be able to get them.
They will not have any other reason to be more creative in how they kill.
Their ideology that compels them to be murderous would deplete.
They would all be well-adjusted.
The threat in America would disappear.
Everyone in America would hand over every single gun.
Everyone in America will embrace revoking of the Constitution rights.
Pigs fly
Okay with all of that in mind
Your words, not mine. I am not that naive. Are you trying to misrepresent what I am saying?
Yeah, let's avoid any thoughts that could help avoid the next one.
How would THAT "avoid" the next one. What is the plan? Tell me something practical and not completely ludicrous that buys into your gun control in America narrative.
See above.
But what's your plan? Me, I would suggest that there is no god-given right for every idiot to obtain a gun, not without a proper background check or, say, a license. I would further suggest that at least some weapons should be off limits for most individuals, say, like those automatic things used in the last couple of shootings in the US.
No, it would not stop all the criminals but it would make it a lot harder for the lone nutjob to follow his every whim.
Why do you think the US is against North Korea's nuclear weapons? Any guesses? After all, there are plenty of countries with full nuclear capabilities. Why shouldn't they have them? If the US and Russia and China have them, why not North Korea?
No guesses?
No? Okay now let's look at this as a wider problem than a crazy homophobe with a gun.
Let's see his motive and whether America is at risk of imminent threat of more Mateens.
Absolutely. San Bernadino and 9/11 are two more examples of terrorist attacks on US soil from terrorists. So there is already a tiny element of US immigrants or second generation immigrants from Muslim countries and many of these people were displaced from their countries of birth or heritage due to US altercations. These are people with hatred to America and its allies and compassion for the Islamic countries from where they were displaced.
Don't go steal Donald's speeches. He'll be cross.
How many shootings on US soil do you suppose have anything to do with terrorism? Any guesses? The fact is that you don't know if the Orlando shootings were an act of terrorism, you only know that ISIS claimed credit for them.
But even if it did, with the current laws, he was a US citizen and obtained his weapon legally. What would you have them do? Throw out every second-generation immigrant, too? Ban Islam on US soil? Pretty sure that would not go well with their constitutional rights but I'm not a lawyer.
Why not ask the one we have among us?
So increase surveillance and access to intelligence on these communities in US may help deal with future potential problems BUT what will NOT is Clinton trying to bring in 500% of the current rates of Syrian refugees (When the Intelligence community in America registers that they are unable to confidently screen and vet everyone decently). Freezing Muslim immigration until America can screen more confidently will ABSOLUTELY reduce the potential of more similar attacks.
About 100,000 or so Syrian refugees had fled to Sweden by the end of last year, while a mere 4,000 got as far as the US. We have yet to have anything even remotely like Orlando or San Bernadino here, so I think what you are describing here is yet another logic fail in one of Donald's speeches (and I'm ignoring the blatant bigotry for now).
But the capital letters sure look dramatic.
-
The fact is that this nutjob, as so many other nutjobs on shooting sprees in the US, could legally obtain their weapons. How many of these tragedies could have been avoided simply by making them just a tiny little bit harder to obtain?
Probably the same number who couldn't get alcohol as a result of prohibition in the 1920's. AFAIK that number was a grand total of 0 people.
The number homicides per 100,000 population in France in 2012 was 0.21. It was 3.43 in the US in 2014. Of course it's a nigger problem.
Fixed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
Yeah, it make so much more sense to allow anyone access to weapons.
So are you advocating disarming blacks?? :dunno:
-
The comparison with the Paris attacks is an odd one--that one was a well-planned attack, carried out by a terror organisation cell. The Orlando attack was the act of a loner, a US citizen who bought the weapon legally, no questions asked, in spite of having been previously questioned by the FBI.
Of course it's a gun problem.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-remarks-gun-control-hauntingly-000000581.html
Obama stating it's impossible to keep suspected terrorist from obtaining guns is currently true, but about 80% of domestic terrorism acts in the US are bombings and arson with guns accounting for about 5% of methodology. It strikes as a scare tactic to promote an agenda when an honest approach would be more meaningful; not sure exactly what gets a person on the watch list but understand it's a lot more than ISIS sympathizers. The US has an eclectic history of domestic terrorism from right wing, left wing, racial, religious, animal and environmental, etc...extremists of every breed who sometimes act as organized and some lone. Every terrorist act carries a sub-set of the population who nod in agreement. Muslim terrorist are no different.
If you think it's scare tactics you're missing the point which is a simple one, namely that your country needs better gun control.
Sure thing, but using scare tactics about muslims is a really crappy way to go about that. That article doesn't make that point. He's blaming the NRA for what the Supreme Court decides, and uses a small fraction of a small faction to illustrate something that could be better served than by playing upon the public's bigotry. An FBI trend study shows a total of 16 instances over the course of thirty years where guns were used as a method for domestic terrorism. I think it's a scare tactic because it's a scare tactic, a shady needless unfounded scare tactic. There's more honest ways to approach it than ooooh the muslims. The second amendment gives the public the right to an organized militia system; there is one in place and that's who's on the watch list along with their sympathizers. Obama's not going to say oooooh the white Christians, but Jack will.
-
This is how I see it.
Sweden's population is a little over 9 million.
France is a little over 64 million.
The US has an estimated population of 323 million as of 2016.
Actually for the size of the country, the diversity, and the population, I think it could be a lot worse.
Russia (over 143 million, and a lot bigger) has stricter gun laws, and double the murder rate.
Mexico has passed some very strict gun laws over the years, hasn't helped them much either. They still beat us by a mile.
Some might say well you can expect that...damn crazy Russians...crazy Mexicans.
But the US is full of crazy Russians, Mexicans, Hungarians, Africans, Irish, Italians, Jamaicans, Chinese, Germans, etc.
Find another country as diverse and as big as this one...pack them all in and tell them to "play nice" and see how it goes.
Honestly I feel Orlando shouldn't have happened. This guy was reported by the owner of the gun shop, this guy was investigated prior by them (twice)...I think someone was asleep at the wheel and not doing their job.
-
Honestly I feel Orlando shouldn't have happened. This guy was reported by the owner of the gun shop, this guy was investigated prior by them (twice)...I think someone was asleep at the wheel and not doing their job.
^ this.
There were many red flags with this guy going back to the 3rd grade. He should've been sent to psychological counseling long ago.
-
Find another country as diverse and as big as this one...pack them all in and tell them to "play nice" and see how it goes.
I reiterate, I think gun dueling should be made legal again. :2thumbsup:
-
the watch list
Everyone on this site is probably on the watchlist for talking about the watchlist. :zoinks:
-
^Not me.
.....Oh shit.
-
The comparison with the Paris attacks is an odd one--that one was a well-planned attack, carried out by a terror organisation cell. The Orlando attack was the act of a loner, a US citizen who bought the weapon legally, no questions asked, in spite of having been previously questioned by the FBI.
Of course it's a gun problem.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-remarks-gun-control-hauntingly-000000581.html
Obama stating it's impossible to keep suspected terrorist from obtaining guns is currently true, but about 80% of domestic terrorism acts in the US are bombings and arson with guns accounting for about 5% of methodology. It strikes as a scare tactic to promote an agenda when an honest approach would be more meaningful; not sure exactly what gets a person on the watch list but understand it's a lot more than ISIS sympathizers. The US has an eclectic history of domestic terrorism from right wing, left wing, racial, religious, animal and environmental, etc...extremists of every breed who sometimes act as organized and some lone. Every terrorist act carries a sub-set of the population who nod in agreement. Muslim terrorist are no different.
If you think it's scare tactics you're missing the point which is a simple one, namely that your country needs better gun control.
Sure thing, but using scare tactics about muslims is a really crappy way to go about that. That article doesn't make that point. He's blaming the NRA for what the Supreme Court decides, and uses a small fraction of a small faction to illustrate something that could be better served than by playing upon the public's bigotry. An FBI trend study shows a total of 16 instances over the course of thirty years where guns were used as a method for domestic terrorism. I think it's a scare tactic because it's a scare tactic, a shady needless unfounded scare tactic. There's more honest ways to approach it than ooooh the muslims. The second amendment gives the public the right to an organized militia system; there is one in place and that's who's on the watch list along with their sympathizers. Obama's not going to say oooooh the white Christians, but Jack will.
I didn't read it as scare tactics, tbh.
-
Honestly I feel Orlando shouldn't have happened. This guy was reported by the owner of the gun shop, this guy was investigated prior by them (twice)...I think someone was asleep at the wheel and not doing their job.
^ this.
There were many red flags with this guy going back to the 3rd grade. He should've been sent to psychological counseling long ago.
Oh, definitely. He should never have been allowed to buy a gun, either. But he was, as were a number of other shooters. Now, what does that tell you about the state of the gun control in your country?
-
Pissy because I'm not responding to your callouts any more? Such language.
Have a look at the bold part of what you wrote. That is why I replied with what I did.
Not at all pissy. I am not sure whether you are aware of how diversely the word "Fuck" or the phrase "Fuck off" can be used in Australia. This is probably a bit closer to how I was putting it out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR72i_Gl1XE
You think "Fuck off" is "such language"? Really? Do you know where you are? You are on I2 where:
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
Oh that is right, you don't back your shit up and your callout IS a testament of that. Does it bother me? No, why should it? It does not reflect on me that you will not back you. That would be moronic to even imply such a thing, wouldn't it be?
Though having said that. It seemed to be quite important to this guy. (A guy that "I" am not accountable to but YOU are):
....There is accountability, however. There is the fact that you had better back up your words when asked, or join some other, moderated, board instead.
The disclaimer says it all. If you are the sensitive type, there are plenty of other boards out there.
....I have no problem understanding why something like the PM spam happens. I just don't like it. It's sneaky and it's dishonest because it's not in the open. It feels very much like an attempt to avoid the accountability that is or at least should be central to how this place works. Remember that shit? Say whatever you like but be prepared to back up your words...
You're not making much sense. but yeah, I'm asking you to back up your shit because it's how we do things here.
Take your time.
....I think you should either prove me wrong, linking to any relevant posts, or shut up. In other words, back up your shit.
Notice, folks, how he never specifies his innuendos? Back up your shit, Cal, or just shut up. Homework, remember?
...Back up your shit. Or apologise.
C'mon, big boy, show me that you are more than an irresponsible internet tough guy.
....But always be prepared to back up your actions.
...I suggest you to back up your accusations or shut up.
I completely agree with the spirit and values as to what this quoted guy is saying. I concur. Imagine how much of a hypocrite he would be if he, after asserting others had to, didn't himself? I mean re-read those quotes. He was pretty expressive and there was no ambiguity.
Do you imagine that I have to answer to that? Nope, YOU do.
Its precisely the same hypocrisy as this:
If I attack somebody, at least I have the honesty to read his or her posts while attacking. Hell, even Benji gets that treatment.
....And I'm sure you'll continue this. This is Intensity, where people can post largely uncensored. And, in your case, unread.
Its an interesting trend, not one that I should feel bad about or pissy about nor one that I ought to or responsible about.
Firstly: In America there is a different culture relating to gun ownership than Australia or Europe. In America it is a constitutional right and as sacred as any other constitutional right. SO you will NOT be able to prevent people from buying guns nor change attitudes in respect to that. Its part of what makes Americans, Americans.
Gun ownership is actually not a constitutional right in the US, but it's what NRA would like you to believe. The Second Amendment s about the right to a well-regulated militia, not about every idiot being allowed to buy a semi-automatic (hence the "well-regulated").
But we happen to have a lawyer in our midst. Why not ask him?
Well I could but I am not the one arguing against it being a constitutional right. If he wants to jump in, I am more than happy for him to do so. As far as I am aware. The meaning of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Seems to me and many to specifically indicate a want of people to keep and bear arms. From what? From the as yet non-materialised threat of a "Government Tyranny". Furthermore any Government wishing to place perceived excessive restrictions on such ability for citizens to bear arms may by virtue of the fact that it is a heavily armed government taking away collective citizen's rights to bear those arms, as a tyrannical government.
The Government buyback in Australia worked well here but it is a different culture and a different relationship to guns than in America.
Government represent the citizens and as long as citizens associate the right to bear arms in the way that they do the government will not be able to stop citizens bearing arms or considering it a right to do so.
Furthermore I would argue that a well- regulated militia is a concept. It is one that does not exist today BUT in the event of calamity, as long as citizens were remaining to be armed, and at the rates that they were, could become organised and regulated. Disarming citizens and removing access to guns would kill the very concept.
I am happy to look at what others more learned than I am on another country's constitutional rights and the effect that these rights do or don't have but this seems to support what I said https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
Secondly: The gun free zones and gun controlled states tend to have the most gun related violence. Why? Again, it may be an American thing but if a criminal or a madman or terrorist (who is probably both of these other categories) decides to use guns (obtained illegally or legally) on people they don't like, are they likely to be least confident (AND "successful") in areas where no one else has guns? Or where any random person can pull out a concealed gun and come out blasting? Imagine you were in a nightclub without a weapon and feeling safe because guns were banned and then some guy walks in with a gun? Doesn't matter at that stage whether they obtained it legally or not.
It's interesting how the statistics vary, then. The risk of ending up face to face with a nutter with a gun is higher in the US than in, say, the UK. I'd much rather take my chances there because yes, I would feel more safe and the statistics would back me up.
And sure, I'd go with 4Ace's comment about letting them and Darwinism and all that, but there are plenty of Americans I like and would rather not having them killed by the next idiot anytime soon.
Orlando is par for the course, unfortunately. Trump, NRA & Co can label it as terrorism because it will probably make them feel better about their mess, but the fact is that it's not surprising in the least. Paris was surprising, Brussels was surprising. Another nutcase with a legally bought firearm in the US, not surprising in the least. Sad, yes. Surprising, no.
Are you for a moment saying that it was not Terrorism? Okay the the Paris attacks were not Terrorism. It was simply a group of people who self-identified with radical Isamic terrorist groups and wanted to terrorise and murder people on the basis of Radical Islamic ideology.
Fine OK, if that is our measure, sure, why not?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=robbers+killed+conceal+and+carry
Thirdly: Its a bit like the "Toxic masculinity" arguments that Feminists have. Something like "Well obviously he is a toxic male and full of toxic masculinity. Men glorify violence and are the more violent gender. Men have to stop being violent".
Your argument whilst a little better is not that much better. Guns kill people, so in gun controlled Orlando, Mateen killed a heap of people with a gun. If not for that he would not have used a pipe bomb or arson or anything else.
A legally obtained gun, bought the previous week. You don't think there is a problem with that?
I think any hateful nutjob killing is abhorrent and no reasonable person would say otherwise. I think any person using a gun to kill someone is not good, unless in self-defence.
But I do not think this is what you are asking. You may be saying is it okay that this security guard had access to guns? Or maybe you are asking is it fine that someone who had been investigated by the FBI had been able to purchase a gun legally?
The answer to any of these questions is "Maybe". Did he slip through the cracks? Was he someone who was able to function in society without the right types of people able to make the right kinds of connections about him that would have otherwise exclude him from gun use? You don't know and neither do I. Do you want me to speculate or are you making a bigger point?
It was purely a gun problem:
Not purely, but it was a gun problem, yes.
If he had of used a pipe bomb to the same effect, it would have been a pipe bomb problem. If this is what you mean by "problem", that is fine. If you are meaning it in another way, then "no".
If there was absolutely sanctioning on guns, then criminals won't be able to get them.
They will not have any other reason to be more creative in how they kill.
Their ideology that compels them to be murderous would deplete.
They would all be well-adjusted.
The threat in America would disappear.
Everyone in America would hand over every single gun.
Everyone in America will embrace revoking of the Constitution rights.
Pigs fly
Okay with all of that in mind
Your words, not mine. I am not that naive. Are you trying to misrepresent what I am saying?
I hope you are not that naive but given the last few months I am forced to question pretty much everything you say.
Here is the thing, If Westboro Baptists decided to ramp up their hate a little more and started graffiti tombstones of service men and of gays whilst it would be a graffiti problem and the may be a graffiti problem in inner cities with tagging. They are not the same. They use the same tools and do similar damage but they are not the same. Th motive between the two are chalk and cheese.
Furthermore IF the Westboro Baptist started doing a few bombings and gun murders domestically and did them with their ideological righteous justifications, it would be foolhardy to either isolate the gun murders from the bombings or to consider the bombings with other domestic bombings and the gun murders with other gun murders.
If they then did online courses promoting their hate and encouraging others to do the same, if a course taker did follow their ideals and commit such crimes and identified as doing it for the Westboro Baptists and considered themselves a Westboro Baptist, it would not matter if they attended the parish or had a relationship personally with them.
Yeah, let's avoid any thoughts that could help avoid the next one.
How would THAT "avoid" the next one. What is the plan? Tell me something practical and not completely ludicrous that buys into your gun control in America narrative.
See above.
But what's your plan? Me, I would suggest that there is no god-given right for every idiot to obtain a gun, not without a proper background check or, say, a license. I would further suggest that at least some weapons should be off limits for most individuals, say, like those automatic things used in the last couple of shootings in the US.
No, it would not stop all the criminals but it would make it a lot harder for the lone nutjob to follow his every whim.
Why do you think the US is against North Korea's nuclear weapons? Any guesses? After all, there are plenty of countries with full nuclear capabilities. Why shouldn't they have them? If the US and Russia and China have them, why not North Korea?
No guesses?
I personally do not think ANY country should have nuclear weapons and further IF America has them, then so should Soviets and North Korea and any other country. They are terrible things but who can say who is safer with them. For decades there was a narrative that Russia was seconds away from flipping the switch. They were all crazy and unstable (what we here now of that North Korean fuckwit) apparently. However I say that Russia was no better or worse than America and I trust neither. Nor do i trust China, nor Israel nor the next country to make nuclear weapons.
No? Okay now let's look at this as a wider problem than a crazy homophobe with a gun.
Let's see his motive and whether America is at risk of imminent threat of more Mateens.
Absolutely. San Bernadino and 9/11 are two more examples of terrorist attacks on US soil from terrorists. So there is already a tiny element of US immigrants or second generation immigrants from Muslim countries and many of these people were displaced from their countries of birth or heritage due to US altercations. These are people with hatred to America and its allies and compassion for the Islamic countries from where they were displaced.
Don't go steal Donald's speeches. He'll be cross.
How many shootings on US soil do you suppose have anything to do with terrorism? Any guesses? The fact is that you don't know if the Orlando shootings were an act of terrorism, you only know that ISIS claimed credit for them.
But even if it did, with the current laws, he was a US citizen and obtained his weapon legally. What would you have them do? Throw out every second-generation immigrant, too? Ban Islam on US soil? Pretty sure that would not go well with their constitutional rights but I'm not a lawyer.
Why not ask the one we have among us?
Steal Donald Trump speeches? Let's be real. Even if Donald trump want to say or mean EXACTLY what I just wrote, he would reduce it all into an embarrassing soundbyte which would go something like this:
"Muslims come here and kill all of us because they all hate America."
Then he would need someone like Katrina Pierson have to translate that for him. "When he said Muslims he mean Radicalised Islamic Muslim Fundamentalists, and when he said all of us, he meant all Americans everywhere are at risk of Radicalised Muslim violence. When he said they hate America, he meant Radical Muslims hate America".
Me? I am more nuanced. He isn't. He is more often than not cringeworthy to watch.
No I know that Mateen made trips to Afganistan and was inspired by a radical Iman and did courses from him that were anti-American and Pro-ISIS. I know that he pledged loyalty to ISIL.
If you want to say that he was not directed by ISIS, I agree, there is nothing showing this, BUT if you are saying the only link was ISIS taking credit for the murders, that simply is not true.
What exactly are you wanting me to ask MLA now? You want me to ask him something that you are wondering, about throwing out second generation immigrants? Its your question, you ask him if you like. I have no interest in it.
If you are wanting what my personal belief is that America should ramp up its screening and intel. It should crack down and monitor Hell out of any and all potential terrorism ties or associations within its borders. It should definitely try restrictive immigration measures.
What these measure should be? Dunno and what's more don't care. I do think that the want for a country to protect itself from foreign threats, and from toxic and harmful ideologies is very important. As to whether a security measure may regrettably also place a hold on non-radical Muslims wanting to peacefully immigrate and make another country their home....its bad luck. Truly bad luck. It is unfortunate but in my opinion until you can differentiate good from bad, it is okay erring on the side of caution.
So increase surveillance and access to intelligence on these communities in US may help deal with future potential problems BUT what will NOT is Clinton trying to bring in 500% of the current rates of Syrian refugees (When the Intelligence community in America registers that they are unable to confidently screen and vet everyone decently). Freezing Muslim immigration until America can screen more confidently will ABSOLUTELY reduce the potential of more similar attacks.
About 100,000 or so Syrian refugees had fled to Sweden by the end of last year, while a mere 4,000 got as far as the US. We have yet to have anything even remotely like Orlando or San Bernadino here, so I think what you are describing here is yet another logic fail in one of Donald's speeches (and I'm ignoring the blatant bigotry for now).
But the capital letters sure look dramatic.
There is no blatantly bigotry so by all means you can back that too.
Yes you say that the 100 000 Syrian refugees have not presented any problems for your country. I sincerely hope that they do not. I really, really do hope for that. I do not want Paris like attacks on your shores. Nor do I want your airports to be bombed like what happened in Brussels. Nor do I want Swedish New Year's sex attacks like the ones in Cologne. I also hope that there will never be rape gangs like there were in Rotherham in your community.
As to whether you have any of these issues and whether if you did, whether it would be informed through immigrant populations from Muslim countries, I don't know
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/175434/1-4-swedish-women-will-be-raped-sexual-assaults-daniel-greenfield
I hope not. I do not want you women, children and men in your community at risk. What about you?
-
I didn't read it as scare tactics, tbh.
Maybe because that article made the topic of discussion to be about US domestic terrorism. Like serial killers, domestic terrorists in the US are a different breed of maniac; their acts are much less common and methods different than other crime, almost exclusively bombers and arsonists, and by in large bombers. Generally acts targeting the public or property are animal rights and environmental extremists, and Christian extremists targeting abortion centers. With the exception of the ALF and ELF most acts in the US aren't by organized groups. The reason the government wants their terrorist watch list to be included in current gun control laws isn't about acts of terrorism; it's about controlling organized groups which the government deems to be a threat to the government rather than the citizenship, and those groups are organized militia groups. For the government to make terrorism to be about anything else is dishonest. Similar to homicide rates and violent crime rates, US domestic terrorism rates are about a third of what they were in the 80's; it could be much better but also could be, and has been, much worse. That decline may be related to government efforts to control and monitor explosives, or maybe this country is simply learning to chill the hell out.
-
Furthermore I would argue that a well- regulated militia is a concept. It is one that does not exist today BUT in the event of calamity, as long as citizens were remaining to be armed, and at the rates that they were, could become organised and regulated. Disarming citizens and removing access to guns would kill the very concept.
'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' isn't exclusive to the concept of organizing a citizen militia in the event of domestic defense. Though yes, correct about what that can possibly mean. The citizen militia is defined as the people, and the people means just that: We the people of the United States. Other instances in the constitution where the word regulate is used, it's clearly defined what is regulated and who regulates; the second amendment is an exception to that so it is left to the supreme court to define what that means. The supreme court has ruled and upheld the meaning of the second amendment to be an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, but also ruling it is not unlimited and does not prohibit regulation. The second amendment has in the past been interpreted by the supreme court to only limit the federal government, but more recently ruled that individual state governments are subject to the same limitations.
-
Furthermore I would argue that a well- regulated militia is a concept. It is one that does not exist today BUT in the event of calamity, as long as citizens were remaining to be armed, and at the rates that they were, could become organised and regulated. Disarming citizens and removing access to guns would kill the very concept.
'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' isn't exclusive to the concept of organizing a citizen militia in the event of domestic defense. Though yes, correct about what that can possibly mean. The citizen militia is defined as the people, and the people means just that: We the people of the United States. Other instances in the constitution where the word regulate is used, it's clearly defined what is regulated and who regulates; the second amendment is an exception to that so it is left to the supreme court to define what that means. The supreme court has long ruled and upheld the meaning of the second amendment to be an individual right of the people to bear arms, but also ruling it is not unlimited and does not prohibit regulation.
True. If the citizens were disarmed or had a lack of weapons "could" they be a militia?
-
Furthermore I would argue that a well- regulated militia is a concept. It is one that does not exist today BUT in the event of calamity, as long as citizens were remaining to be armed, and at the rates that they were, could become organised and regulated. Disarming citizens and removing access to guns would kill the very concept.
'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' isn't exclusive to the concept of organizing a citizen militia in the event of domestic defense. Though yes, correct about what that can possibly mean. The citizen militia is defined as the people, and the people means just that: We the people of the United States. Other instances in the constitution where the word regulate is used, it's clearly defined what is regulated and who regulates; the second amendment is an exception to that so it is left to the supreme court to define what that means. The supreme court has long ruled and upheld the meaning of the second amendment to be an individual right of the people to bear arms, but also ruling it is not unlimited and does not prohibit regulation.
True. If the citizens were disarmed or had a lack of weapons "could" they be a militia?
As a federally organized group such as the reserve and selective service systems in the US, yes they probably could be. Though from my understanding, defining the word militia by means of able bodied men of a certain age, isn't crucial to legally interpreting the second amendment as an individual right applying to the citizenship as a whole.
-
Honestly I feel Orlando shouldn't have happened. This guy was reported by the owner of the gun shop, this guy was investigated prior by them (twice)...I think someone was asleep at the wheel and not doing their job.
^ this.
There were many red flags with this guy going back to the 3rd grade. He should've been sent to psychological counseling long ago.
Oh, definitely. He should never have been allowed to buy a gun, either. But he was, as were a number of other shooters. Now, what does that tell you about the state of the gun control in your country?
It tells me that I will keep my guns to protect myself from all the nut cases slipping through the cracks in the mental health system and the law enforcement sector. :zoinks:
-
Absolutely, but if a calamity happen (government went tyrannical, American was invaded by foreign army, aliens - lol, etc) having a high ratio of gun ownership of the citizens would make that task easier than say "Okay we have 1 gun for every 10 people so the rest will have to throw rocks and carry knives."
-
Gun ownership is actually not a constitutional right in the US, but it's what NRA would like you to believe. The Second Amendment s about the right to a well-regulated militia, not about every idiot being allowed to buy a semi-automatic (hence the "well-regulated").
But we happen to have a lawyer in our midst. Why not ask him?
You don't have to be a lawyer, it's a well known Supreme Court decision that affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
-
Honestly I feel Orlando shouldn't have happened. This guy was reported by the owner of the gun shop, this guy was investigated prior by them (twice)...I think someone was asleep at the wheel and not doing their job.
^ this.
There were many red flags with this guy going back to the 3rd grade. He should've been sent to psychological counseling long ago.
Oh, definitely. He should never have been allowed to buy a gun, either. But he was, as were a number of other shooters. Now, what does that tell you about the state of the gun control in your country?
That existing laws aren't being enforced. It's already illegal for those with certain diagnosed mental disorders to buy guns, It goes back to the broken US mental health care system.
-
This is how I see it.
Sweden's population is a little over 9 million.
France is a little over 64 million.
The US has an estimated population of 323 million as of 2016.
Actually for the size of the country, the diversity, and the population, I think it could be a lot worse.
Russia (over 143 million, and a lot bigger) has stricter gun laws, and double the murder rate.
Mexico has passed some very strict gun laws over the years, hasn't helped them much either. They still beat us by a mile.
Some might say well you can expect that...damn crazy Russians...crazy Mexicans.
But the US is full of crazy Russians, Mexicans, Hungarians, Africans, Irish, Italians, Jamaicans, Chinese, Germans, etc.
Find another country as diverse and as big as this one...pack them all in and tell them to "play nice" and see how it goes.
Honestly I feel Orlando shouldn't have happened. This guy was reported by the owner of the gun shop, this guy was investigated prior by them (twice)...I think someone was asleep at the wheel and not doing their job.
We do not need more gun laws, BUT we DO need to boldly enforce the ones already on the books.
This terrorist should never had access to our constitutional freedoms. We need to use existing laws to keep legal guns out of these peoples' hands.
I know that there are plenty of illegal guns out there and more laws will not affect that issue, since criminals are not afraid of the laws they ignore every day.
Maybe I have a small fascist twitch at times, but if this terrorist (pot, kettle, black. This person, American citizen or not, was a terrorist!) did things that got him on a so called FBI "watch list" in the past, how is it that he got "cleared" so easily. Was there not a single OCD FBI agent willing to keep looming into him and his behavior while keeping on a watch list??
Or is it more of a thing where IF they can remove people from a watch list, then their workload is lessened, consequences be damned?!?
-
Furthermore I would argue that a well- regulated militia is a concept. It is one that does not exist today BUT in the event of calamity, as long as citizens were remaining to be armed, and at the rates that they were, could become organised and regulated. Disarming citizens and removing access to guns would kill the very concept.
'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' isn't exclusive to the concept of organizing a citizen militia in the event of domestic defense. Though yes, correct about what that can possibly mean. The citizen militia is defined as the people, and the people means just that: We the people of the United States. Other instances in the constitution where the word regulate is used, it's clearly defined what is regulated and who regulates; the second amendment is an exception to that so it is left to the supreme court to define what that means. The supreme court has long ruled and upheld the meaning of the second amendment to be an individual right of the people to bear arms, but also ruling it is not unlimited and does not prohibit regulation.
True. If the citizens were disarmed or had a lack of weapons "could" they be a militia?
No and I fully believe we are more safe with our weapons in hand than without any.
There will always be people fighting among themselves and dying because of it.
I prefer the "rifle behind every blade of grass" defense. Too bad I do not have more patriotic countrymen on my side.
I keep a deadly blade with me at all times and when I am not in a school, city building, concert or other highly restricted venue, I generally carry a concealed .45 auto, not just in case or any thing, but because it is my right to do so and I am getting a little old to be as effective in a fight as I once was.
I wonder how the Orlando thing might have gone if there had been a dozen or so (in a crowd of three hundred, that "dozen" number is probably quite low in most places) "Pink Pistols" in attendance.
-
Honestly I feel Orlando shouldn't have happened. This guy was reported by the owner of the gun shop, this guy was investigated prior by them (twice)...I think someone was asleep at the wheel and not doing their job.
^ this.
There were many red flags with this guy going back to the 3rd grade. He should've been sent to psychological counseling long ago.
Oh, definitely. He should never have been allowed to buy a gun, either. But he was, as were a number of other shooters. Now, what does that tell you about the state of the gun control in your country?
That existing laws aren't being enforced. It's already illegal for those with certain diagnosed mental disorders to buy guns, It goes back to the broken US mental health care system.
Sorry, did not realize you had already stated this obvious solution.
Just enforcing HARSHLY the laws that already exist, would help with keeping the "legal" guns out of the hands of most idiots instantly.
That still leaves the black market guns, which we will never clear out, no matter how the government restricts our law abiding populace from owning weaponry.
-
Furthermore I would argue that a well- regulated militia is a concept. It is one that does not exist today BUT in the event of calamity, as long as citizens were remaining to be armed, and at the rates that they were, could become organised and regulated. Disarming citizens and removing access to guns would kill the very concept.
'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' isn't exclusive to the concept of organizing a citizen militia in the event of domestic defense. Though yes, correct about what that can possibly mean. The citizen militia is defined as the people, and the people means just that: We the people of the United States. Other instances in the constitution where the word regulate is used, it's clearly defined what is regulated and who regulates; the second amendment is an exception to that so it is left to the supreme court to define what that means. The supreme court has long ruled and upheld the meaning of the second amendment to be an individual right of the people to bear arms, but also ruling it is not unlimited and does not prohibit regulation.
True. If the citizens were disarmed or had a lack of weapons "could" they be a militia?
No and I fully believe we are more safe with our weapons in hand than without any.
There will always be people fighting among themselves and dying because of it.
I prefer the "rifle behind every blade of grass" defense. Too bad I do not have more patriotic countrymen on my side.
I keep a deadly blade with me at all times and when I am not in a school, city building, concert or other highly restricted venue, I generally carry a concealed .45 auto, not just in case or any thing, but because it is my right to do so and I am getting a little old to be as effective in a fight as I once was.
I wonder how the Orlando thing might have gone if there had been a dozen or so (in a crowd of three hundred, that "dozen" number is probably quite low in most places) "Pink Pistols" in attendance.
I think you make a good point
-
Furthermore I would argue that a well- regulated militia is a concept. It is one that does not exist today BUT in the event of calamity, as long as citizens were remaining to be armed, and at the rates that they were, could become organised and regulated. Disarming citizens and removing access to guns would kill the very concept.
'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' isn't exclusive to the concept of organizing a citizen militia in the event of domestic defense. Though yes, correct about what that can possibly mean. The citizen militia is defined as the people, and the people means just that: We the people of the United States. Other instances in the constitution where the word regulate is used, it's clearly defined what is regulated and who regulates; the second amendment is an exception to that so it is left to the supreme court to define what that means. The supreme court has long ruled and upheld the meaning of the second amendment to be an individual right of the people to bear arms, but also ruling it is not unlimited and does not prohibit regulation.
True. If the citizens were disarmed or had a lack of weapons "could" they be a militia?
No and I fully believe we are more safe with our weapons in hand than without any.
There will always be people fighting among themselves and dying because of it.
I prefer the "rifle behind every blade of grass" defense. Too bad I do not have more patriotic countrymen on my side.
I keep a deadly blade with me at all times and when I am not in a school, city building, concert or other highly restricted venue, I generally carry a concealed .45 auto, not just in case or any thing, but because it is my right to do so and I am getting a little old to be as effective in a fight as I once was.
I wonder how the Orlando thing might have gone if there had been a dozen or so (in a crowd of three hundred, that "dozen" number is probably quite low in most places) "Pink Pistols" in attendance.
I think you make a good point
I found this graphic.
It is not an "assault weapon" but a hunting weapon. I actually own several, enough to share if it comes to that.
I just think the pic indicates the mysterious "Blade Of Grass" warning quite well.
BTW, one of my favorite rhetorical fist shaking comments:
Assault is a human behavior, not a mechanical device.
The "Assault Weapon" phrase is almost an oxymoron, even allowing for the violence of the human element.
I have a garage full of PROVEN assault weapons, rakes (some personal history) hoes, shovels, forks, baseball bats (personal history), cameras with heavy duty straps (personal history). Inside I have a very dangerous environment for an intruder indeed.
Throw a shitty little ceramic decoration, a potato, handful of quarters from my dump jar, anything I can grab with some weight to it into a long sock (all my sock are long) and I have a very effective weapon in hand. Now, while I might be a little more effective with a handful of shit that resembles a mace, if they have a gun, I am fucked if I do not reach for one of my guns first.
Forget the dog. Beware of owner.
-
Al,
I would urge you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden or http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372 for slightly more nuanced views of rape in Sweden. Also note that BRÅ, The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, has not released detailed data on rapes committed by immigrants in 20 years or so, which means that the site you linked to ("the David Horowiz Freedom Center") has either cooked the numbers themselves or used numbers cooked by others.
Incidentally, they describe themselves as follows:
Identify the enemy
Devise ways to defeat him
The David Horowitz Freedom Center is unique among conservative think tanks whose emphasis is on public policy and institutional reform in that it sees its role as that of a battle tank, geared to fight a war that many still don’t recognize. For 27 years, since its founding in 1988, the Center has been warning that the political left has declared war on America and its constitutional system, and is willing to collaborate with America’s enemies abroad and criminals at home to bring America down. For most of those years the Center was a voice crying in the wilderness with few willing to recognize the threat from the enemy within, a fifth column force that was steadily expanding its influence within the Democratic Party. With the election of a lifetime radical to the White House in 2008, the perceptions of conservatives began to change. But the Center remains unique as an organization dedicated to the war and to developing strategies to win it.
I'd say it's unlikely that any objective data will be produced by these guys. Certainly, they conveniently left out any explanation of the Swedish rape data and why a comparison to other countries may not work.
It is what one would expect from a radical right-wing "think tank" (not using that last term in a charitable way, btw).
The BBC article begins with this, btw:
Which two countries are the kidnapping capitals of the world?
Australia and Canada.
Official figures from the United Nations show that there were 17 kidnaps per 100,000 people in Australia in 2010 and 12.7 in Canada.
That compares with only 0.6 in Colombia and 1.1 in Mexico.
Which demonstrates the kind of point I'm making here, namely that we should all have a think about any numbers presented to us before starting to blame any group of people.
As for your confused and overly long post on the Orlando shooter and your interpretations of what I did and did not say, goodness, man. Do you actually read what I write?
No, I did not say that the Paris or Brussels attacks weren't acts of terrorism. What the Orlando act was is being debated and the way I see it, no one knows just yet. I think we can agree on mass murder, though.
Banning Muslims from entering the US is a bigoted statement, straight out from Donald's campaign book. Don't like me calling it bigoted? Tough. You have no factual basis for that statement and it would certainly not have stopped the Orlando shootings.
-
For all your pompous condescension you are not backing yourself well yet.
Yes you can simply call me names and not back it, and say "tough", all you like. Regardless of whether the statements are factual or not, (and yes I am happy to debate this), that does not mean that they are bigoted.
What would be really poor form is to think that calling people names proves the argument, that the person is the very things you named that person. It would be almost as bad to think that pompous condescension makes a point for you. It doesn't.
One in four. Not the first time nor the first place I saw harrowing statistics around Swedish rape and rape crisis. Don't get me wrong, it may be all beat up. Feminist propaganda, right wing conspiracies, or academics trying to generate bogus studies to generate funding and attention.
But my point is clear and any rational person would not have found it confusing and neither did you. You just did not agree with what I was saying. I do not find that at all surprising. Plenty of people here in this thread do not agree with you on the "the right to bear arms" not being constitutional. Its fine to believe this but it doesn't make you right, moral or better for believing otherwise.
The same applies to whether this horrific act was terrorism and whether it can be placed alongside any other Radical Islamic based terrorist attack. We could take a poll on that if you like. I think you may be surprised at the results.
Now I don't know your views on Radical Islamic beliefs. I have not asked, and I do not know if I really care, but I think that these views are anti-intellectual, divisive, hateful, exclusionary and anti-Western in every sens of the word. We know that there is real issues such as I mentioned. We can pretend that the extent of the problem is minor or able to be effectively countered. We can say that these things are not a systematic problem
Been for a swim lately Odeon?
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Swedish+swimming+pool+sexual+assaults
But yes nothing systematic as I say. The 1 in 4 is looking closer and closer. As above in the link. It is not to any ONE post you can dismiss.
So now we come down to not what "we" should do, but what America should do. Hillary Clinton wishes to up the up the intake of immigrants from country where Radical Islamic practitioners are numerous generally and Syria specifically (550%). Perhaps she doesn't go to public swimming pools often, I don't know.
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslim immigration and place it on hold until he feels that the FBI can properly reference all Muslims from such countries as to whether they may be Radicalised and limit the risk of such things as the rape crisis and terror attacks that seems to come as a result of such Western hatred from the radicals in Muslim communities.
One makes NO sense and not only ignores the harm but exacerbates it. The other is a little vague on details and perhaps a little impractical BUT it is at least not likely to do harm and is acknowledging the issue. Whilst this may stop moderate Muslims from moving to America, I am sure it will not prevent more Muslims good and bad from immigrating to other countries in Europe. The good ones will work hard and integrate and make a cultural and social contribution to your society. The bad ones? Well you may see them down the local pool molesting women and childre nor heading over to Cologne for New Year's Eve celebrations BUT if you do not see them, that too is a concern, they may be planning the next terrorist attack. I do not think Americans want that and I think Trump recognises this.
See, you criticise trump and he is a blustering, egomanical blowhard on his bad days, but on issues like this I think he is making a very tough, hard, but good call.
So you can say that I am making Trump's talking points but I don't care. I think Hillary is a horrible human being and out of the two, Trump is a far better pick. Who else is there? Bernie? The crazy old Socialist? Gary Johnson the 10%'er and gormless dope-smoker? No it comes down to a criminal and a blowhard. In pretty much every measure he is the best of a bad lot. He is the only chance to beat Hillary (and Hillary needs to be beaten and hopefully jailed).
But have you got anything better than calling me a bigot or intellectually dishonest or perhaps for an encore a poopy-pants? You got an argument? A position? Anything more concrete than insults and condescension?
Not making demands of course. Do what you like. Your board - your rules. Hell you could change the front page and its inconvenient talk of backing yourself. You could remove Call out areas entirely if you wanted. Or you could ignore it and pretend it was of no consequence.
But I know it used to be an anvil of which you used to pound and doing otherwise would seem hypocritical to me.
....There is accountability, however. There is the fact that you had better back up your words when asked, or join some other, moderated, board instead.
The disclaimer says it all. If you are the sensitive type, there are plenty of other boards out there.
....I have no problem understanding why something like the PM spam happens. I just don't like it. It's sneaky and it's dishonest because it's not in the open. It feels very much like an attempt to avoid the accountability that is or at least should be central to how this place works. Remember that shit? Say whatever you like but be prepared to back up your words...
You're not making much sense. but yeah, I'm asking you to back up your shit because it's how we do things here.
Take your time.
....I think you should either prove me wrong, linking to any relevant posts, or shut up. In other words, back up your shit.
Notice, folks, how he never specifies his innuendos? Back up your shit, Cal, or just shut up. Homework, remember?
...Back up your shit. Or apologise.
C'mon, big boy, show me that you are more than an irresponsible internet tough guy.
....But always be prepared to back up your actions.
...I suggest you to back up your accusations or shut up.
-
^Not me.
.....Oh shit.
:lol1:
-
Al,
If you'd bothered to read the articles I pointed to, you would have had your explanation, suitably backed up. The one in four claim is meaningless as it is not based in fact. Why is this? Because those statistics are not available. Also, as most of the organisations who collect and use these numbers for something else than their own agendas point out, comparisons with other countries are problematic and frequently irrelevant because of the varying definitions of the crimes and how statistics are collected.
You'd know this if you had read the articles. You'd know that Australia topping the kidnap statistics is a perfect example of what happens when you do compare crime statistics without bothering to check the numbers.
But instead you went for the drama and for the easy but largely irrelevant points. Fail.
BTW, I notice that you're not actually backing up anything yourself. There are no figures to your increased crime hints in Sweden, only a link to dramatic play with numbers by a hate group calling themselves a think tank, no figures to support that supposed sudden increase in crime proportional to the sudden increase in Syrian refugees. Nothing but guesses. And why is that? Because there are no publicly available numbers on what they claim, and because they use the numbers that are available in, shall we say, a somewhat liberal fashion. It's akin to that lawyer Scrap posted a video of the other day, about radical Islam support.
Of course, closing the US borders for Muslims might bring down something. Maybe one or two of the millions of people who'd otherwise have crossed that border would commit their crimes somewhere else. Who knows? You sure don't, and Trump doesn't, because none of you has backed up anything. So yes, I'm still calling that statement bigoted since the only thing it does is singling out a group.
You know what would help even more than shutting out the Muslims? Closing those borders for everybody.
Yet doing that would not have prevented Orlando either.
-
So yes, I'm still calling that statement bigoted since the only thing it does is singling out a group.
And yet you can't deny it's a certain subset of this group that is responsible for a majority of worldwide terrorism.
You know what would help even more than shutting out the Muslims? Closing those borders for everybody.
Yet doing that would not have prevented Orlando either.
You know what would've prevented it? A correct DX of Omar Mateen that would've not only prevented him from legally buying a gun under existing law, but likely would've locked him up so he couldn't harm others. :nerdy:
-
Al,
If you'd bothered to read the articles I pointed to, you would have had your explanation, suitably backed up. The one in four claim is meaningless as it is not based in fact. Why is this? Because those statistics are not available. Also, as most of the organisations who collect and use these numbers for something else than their own agendas point out, comparisons with other countries are problematic and frequently irrelevant because of the varying definitions of the crimes and how statistics are collected.
You'd know this if you had read the articles. You'd know that Australia topping the kidnap statistics is a perfect example of what happens when you do compare crime statistics without bothering to check the numbers.
But instead you went for the drama and for the easy but largely irrelevant points. Fail.
BTW, I notice that you're not actually backing up anything yourself. There are no figures to your increased crime hints in Sweden, only a link to dramatic play with numbers by a hate group calling themselves a think tank, no figures to support that supposed sudden increase in crime proportional to the sudden increase in Syrian refugees. Nothing but guesses. And why is that? Because there are no publicly available numbers on what they claim, and because they use the numbers that are available in, shall we say, a somewhat liberal fashion. It's akin to that lawyer Scrap posted a video of the other day, about radical Islam support.
Of course, closing the US borders for Muslims might bring down something. Maybe one or two of the millions of people who'd otherwise have crossed that border would commit their crimes somewhere else. Who knows? You sure don't, and Trump doesn't, because none of you has backed up anything. So yes, I'm still calling that statement bigoted since the only thing it does is singling out a group.
You know what would help even more than shutting out the Muslims? Closing those borders for everybody.
Yet doing that would not have prevented Orlando either.
Kidnapping rife here? Too right. Our dingoes steal babies. Our crocodiles "kidnap" European tourists who swim in our billabongs
Yes the rape crisis in Sweden is just a one article thing.
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHZL_enAU691AU691&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=swedish%20rape%20crisis
Damn!
Oh and this maybe one or two out of the millions. Where are you getting YOUR figures from? Comey states there are 900 active investigations (not closed investigations like Mateen's two investigations were) and he suspect NOT one or two but potentially dozens. Probably in the same way that there were not on or two bad eggs out on New Year's Eve sexually assaulting women in Cologne, or molesting women and children in Swedish swimming pools, or forming rape gangs in Rotherham, or blowing up the World Trade Centre, or Blowing up the Brussels Airport or Terrorising Paris.
But Hell, you can keep downplaying it to be one or two in a million. Why not? Just do me a favour, do not extend this dismissiveness outside of this argument and encourage your female family or female friends to go to your local swimming pool by themselves unless it is during a gender segregated time (introduced to reduce such sexual assaults). Because you know you can talk crap all you want on here but keep your loved ones safe.
The only group I have singled out is Radical Muslims. Show me otherwise. (Yes showing that I said I supported a Muslim freeze on Immigration UNTIL America can confidentially keep out radicalised Muslims (singling out) and let only the moderate and decent Muslims in (not singling out), is NOT singling out Muslims as a whole nor is it being bigoted. You aren't really stupid enough to think so are you? I would not imagine you are. Surprise me.)
-
Gun ownership is actually not a constitutional right in the US, but it's what NRA would like you to believe. The Second Amendment s about the right to a well-regulated militia, not about every idiot being allowed to buy a semi-automatic (hence the "well-regulated").
But we happen to have a lawyer in our midst. Why not ask him?
You don't have to be a lawyer, it's a well known Supreme Court decision that affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
DC v. Heller is not great precedent yet. It's only 6 years old and easily reversed now that the conservative majority has been laid to rest. Just today SCOTUS refused to hear a challenge to a statewide assault weapons ban. They wouldn't stop Congress from imposing one at this point.
-
This is how I see it.
Sweden's population is a little over 9 million.
France is a little over 64 million.
The US has an estimated population of 323 million as of 2016.
Actually for the size of the country, the diversity, and the population, I think it could be a lot worse.
Russia (over 143 million, and a lot bigger) has stricter gun laws, and double the murder rate.
Mexico has passed some very strict gun laws over the years, hasn't helped them much either. They still beat us by a mile.
Some might say well you can expect that...damn crazy Russians...crazy Mexicans.
But the US is full of crazy Russians, Mexicans, Hungarians, Africans, Irish, Italians, Jamaicans, Chinese, Germans, etc.
Find another country as diverse and as big as this one...pack them all in and tell them to "play nice" and see how it goes.
Honestly I feel Orlando shouldn't have happened. This guy was reported by the owner of the gun shop, this guy was investigated prior by them (twice)...I think someone was asleep at the wheel and not doing their job.
We do not need more gun laws, BUT we DO need to boldly enforce the ones already on the books.
This IS the standard NRA talking point, but actually believing it puts you in the very small minority. 77% of Americans are supportive of new gun laws right now. Universal background checks and not allowing sales to people on a terrorist watchlist.
-
So yes, I'm still calling that statement bigoted since the only thing it does is singling out a group.
And yet you can't deny it's a certain subset of this group that is responsible for a majority of worldwide terrorism.
They might be the currently largest overall group when counting the number of deaths, but the reason to these are conflicts in five (5) countries. If you look at the rest of the world, including yours, you'd probably be better off denying entry to separatist movements and the like. Or Jews, or those who hate Jews.
Denying Muslims entry is pointless and bigoted, and there is no data to support such an action. You could just as well deny people of East European origin entry. It would be just as useful and probably easier to manage.
You know what would help even more than shutting out the Muslims? Closing those borders for everybody.
Yet doing that would not have prevented Orlando either.
You know what would've prevented it? A correct DX of Omar Mateen that would've not only prevented him from legally buying a gun under existing law, but likely would've locked him up so he couldn't harm others. :nerdy:
So why don't you? Or better yet, make it just a tiny bit harder for people to buy guns? Imagine what a waiting period of, say, a month would do, or a limit to the rounds of ammunition you could buy. Or a license, and no access to certain types of weapons.
I'm betting all of these things would help a lot more than banning Muslims at your borders, with the added advantage that it would make your country look less bigoted and stupid.
-
Al,
If you'd bothered to read the articles I pointed to, you would have had your explanation, suitably backed up. The one in four claim is meaningless as it is not based in fact. Why is this? Because those statistics are not available. Also, as most of the organisations who collect and use these numbers for something else than their own agendas point out, comparisons with other countries are problematic and frequently irrelevant because of the varying definitions of the crimes and how statistics are collected.
You'd know this if you had read the articles. You'd know that Australia topping the kidnap statistics is a perfect example of what happens when you do compare crime statistics without bothering to check the numbers.
But instead you went for the drama and for the easy but largely irrelevant points. Fail.
BTW, I notice that you're not actually backing up anything yourself. There are no figures to your increased crime hints in Sweden, only a link to dramatic play with numbers by a hate group calling themselves a think tank, no figures to support that supposed sudden increase in crime proportional to the sudden increase in Syrian refugees. Nothing but guesses. And why is that? Because there are no publicly available numbers on what they claim, and because they use the numbers that are available in, shall we say, a somewhat liberal fashion. It's akin to that lawyer Scrap posted a video of the other day, about radical Islam support.
Of course, closing the US borders for Muslims might bring down something. Maybe one or two of the millions of people who'd otherwise have crossed that border would commit their crimes somewhere else. Who knows? You sure don't, and Trump doesn't, because none of you has backed up anything. So yes, I'm still calling that statement bigoted since the only thing it does is singling out a group.
You know what would help even more than shutting out the Muslims? Closing those borders for everybody.
Yet doing that would not have prevented Orlando either.
Kidnapping rife here? Too right. Our dingoes steal babies. Our crocodiles "kidnap" European tourists who swim in our billabongs
Still not read the article, then? Oh well.
Yes the rape crisis in Sweden is just a one article thing.
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHZL_enAU691AU691&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=swedish%20rape%20crisis
Damn!
Oh and this maybe one or two out of the millions. Where are you getting YOUR figures from?
The figures that actually are available? From BRÅ, mainly. This is a summary: https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html.
I guess you didn't read my links, did you?
Comey states there are 900 active investigations (not closed investigations like Mateen's two investigations were) and he suspect NOT one or two but potentially dozens. Probably in the same way that there were not on or two bad eggs out on New Year's Eve sexually assaulting women in Cologne, or molesting women and children in Swedish swimming pools, or forming rape gangs in Rotherham, or blowing up the World Trade Centre, or Blowing up the Brussels Airport or Terrorising Paris.
But Hell, you can keep downplaying it to be one or two in a million. Why not? Just do me a favour, do not extend this dismissiveness outside of this argument and encourage your female family or female friends to go to your local swimming pool by themselves unless it is during a gender segregated time (introduced to reduce such sexual assaults). Because you know you can talk crap all you want on here but keep your loved ones safe.
They are already doing it, and doing it safely. I don't know where you got these ideas from but I can assure you that they are not true. But I guess you'd rather believe in hate groups masquerading as "think tanks".
I had imagined--or rather, hoped--that you'd apply at least some measure of critical thinking to whatever you find on teh interwebz, but apparently not. Bloody hell, Al.
The only group I have singled out is Radical Muslims. Show me otherwise. (Yes showing that I said I supported a Muslim freeze on Immigration UNTIL America can confidentially keep out radicalised Muslims (singling out) and let only the moderate and decent Muslims in (not singling out), is NOT singling out Muslims as a whole nor is it being bigoted. You aren't really stupid enough to think so are you? I would not imagine you are. Surprise me.)
You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders:
Now Hillary Clinton believes that increasing 500% the amount of Syrian Muslims immigrants into America is a great idea. Trump thinks placing a freeze on immigration of Muslims and folks from Muslim dominant countries is the way to go.
I think Trump is being rational but I don't think his immigration policy would be easily implemented or adhered to. It is something though.
No qualifying here, because that came in a later post, probably when you realised how stupid the idea was and wanted to backtrack.
The idea is stupid and unrealistic, in addition to being bigoted. Whatever makes you think that they could ever implement something better than is already there? They've already spent years fine-tuning security checks and so far it's not going brilliantly.
And I reiterate: the border controls would not have stopped Orlando. What's your plan?
-
This IS the standard NRA talking point, but actually believing it puts you in the very small minority. 77% of Americans are supportive of new gun laws right now. Universal background checks and not allowing sales to people on a terrorist watchlist.
It's true the biggest gaping loophole in current legislation is private sales. A database is only as strong as the information entered and the proposal of making the NICS universal puts the government in the position of admitting they're the problem; the current system is weak and especially weak in mental health data because state reporting to NICS is voluntary. It's not surprising legislative support has been in the past lacking to expand the system because it means increasing the budget while numerous states have accepted millions in federal grants to fund reporting while basically not giving back much of anything. The government fails by no enforcing states to facilitate existing federal laws. It's definitely a valid talking point; though not a valid argument against funding universal laws of usage.
-
Al,
If you'd bothered to read the articles I pointed to, you would have had your explanation, suitably backed up. The one in four claim is meaningless as it is not based in fact. Why is this? Because those statistics are not available. Also, as most of the organisations who collect and use these numbers for something else than their own agendas point out, comparisons with other countries are problematic and frequently irrelevant because of the varying definitions of the crimes and how statistics are collected.
You'd know this if you had read the articles. You'd know that Australia topping the kidnap statistics is a perfect example of what happens when you do compare crime statistics without bothering to check the numbers.
But instead you went for the drama and for the easy but largely irrelevant points. Fail.
BTW, I notice that you're not actually backing up anything yourself. There are no figures to your increased crime hints in Sweden, only a link to dramatic play with numbers by a hate group calling themselves a think tank, no figures to support that supposed sudden increase in crime proportional to the sudden increase in Syrian refugees. Nothing but guesses. And why is that? Because there are no publicly available numbers on what they claim, and because they use the numbers that are available in, shall we say, a somewhat liberal fashion. It's akin to that lawyer Scrap posted a video of the other day, about radical Islam support.
Of course, closing the US borders for Muslims might bring down something. Maybe one or two of the millions of people who'd otherwise have crossed that border would commit their crimes somewhere else. Who knows? You sure don't, and Trump doesn't, because none of you has backed up anything. So yes, I'm still calling that statement bigoted since the only thing it does is singling out a group.
You know what would help even more than shutting out the Muslims? Closing those borders for everybody.
Yet doing that would not have prevented Orlando either.
Well that was all a big text dump.
You sent in links? I saw one link you posted, citing low percentage statistics to rape in Sweden. I do not know the organisation that posted and (taking advice from you to dismiss single article reporting on something as an anomaly and likely a hate group with their own agenda) I will accord you the same respect.
So when you look at more respectable and well known sources Time? Personally I think they are well known but very "Liberal" in both ideology and what they are prepared to print as "fact". But many with Left leanings like what they write and afford it a certain a mount of respect.
http://time.com/4182186/sweden-feminists-sexual-assault-refugees/
So here is a similar issue in Sweden as was in Rotherham. Police reluctant to pursue Immigrant rape abuse and "Taharrush" for fear of being racist and Feminists "don’t want that threat (of male to female sexual violence) used as a political weapons against refugees". In fact in some extremes, giving out some very strange messages
https://www.barritrad.com/swedish-feminists-please-dont-protect-us-get-raped-immigrants/
Even so the incidences of reported rapes notwithstanding all of this is 3 times higher than Zegh-country and twice as high as UK and US.
Seems pretty rapey to me.
Yes Kidnapping IS high in Australia because when Mothers do not get their children back on time (or if they are feeling particularly vindictive) they will call police and report their children as stolen and it gets logged in the records as kidnapping. I have had similar happen to me. It is not anything that reaches the court but it will be recorded as kidnapping.
Still not read the article, then? Oh well.
The figures that actually are available? From BRÅ, mainly. This is a summary: https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html.
Yup here is that link.
63 per 100 000 in Sweden vs
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/rape
The rate of rapes (legacy definition) in 2013 was estimated at 25.2 per 100,000 females
I dunno, it just looks bad for Sweden at this point. they look a lot more rapey. Why do you think that is Odeon?
What IS happening nowdays in your swimming pools? Here is one of our left leaning sites. (They seriously hate trump and adore Hillary)
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/cologne-is-every-day-europes-rape-epidemic/news-story/e2e618e17ad4400b5ed65045e65e141d
I hear that they initially tried putting guards in place specifically for policing the problems they were having with Migrant Muslim men sexually abusing and women and children. Is this true or not Odeon, you fucking live there. YOUR community.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/29/groping-guards-patrol-swedish-swimming-pools-to-pr/
Now they are trying some good old segregation. Never needed it before but I would be the first to recommend that IF there is a threat then minimising exposure through exclusion (even if some people excluded are not the cause of the problem) is sensible. I may have made this point somewhere else. Did you see that?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/675726/Swimming-pool-segregation-on-the-rise-to-accommodate-Muslim-migrants-in-Sweden
I guess you didn't read my links, did you?
Links? yes please send me links. Oh and back your crap up, you are making my points for me.
They are already doing it, and doing it safely. I don't know where you got these ideas from but I can assure you that they are not true. But I guess you'd rather believe in hate groups masquerading as "think tanks".
I had imagined--or rather, hoped--that you'd apply at least some measure of critical thinking to whatever you find on teh interwebz, but apparently not. Bloody hell, Al.
These groups? What groups. I posted a link at one time and you took exception to it because you did not like the organisation. Since then I have posted many links and sometimes simply the search terms to show you an abundance of like-minded articles to accommodate your inability to move along.
I get it. You do not like this David whoever from whatever the link was now. You do not like his point of view and you disagree. You think he is wrong. I may not. I say "may not" because I am not really sure that was a number of posts ago. I get it. You think that the guy is bad and dangerous and part of a think tank. I got it the first time. I got it the second time. That said now you are trying to turn one site into a group of sites. His site is not legion.
Bloody Hell.
You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders:
Going to call you a liar outright and ask that you neither back track and:
No qualifying here
To show your inability to back this I will say I never said this and you can not show this. Now show me where I said anything about Muslim tourists visiting US on a visa and Muslim Americans coming back home from vacations.
Do not water down
You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders:
No backtracking and no qualifying. Why did you lie. Are you so unable to back yourself? Is your position so very weak that you have to lie? I am curious.
No qualifying here, because that came in a later post, probably when you realised how stupid the idea was and wanted to backtrack.
The idea is stupid and unrealistic, in addition to being bigoted. Whatever makes you think that they could ever implement something better than is already there? They've already spent years fine-tuning security checks and so far it's not going brilliantly.
And I reiterate: the border controls would not have stopped Orlando. What's your plan?
No, its not going brilliantly. As mentioned previously, many people coming to US are difficult to vet because there are so few verifiable databases and records to check. It means taking people on faith that they are who they say they are. Why would that be? Consider the countries that many of these people are immigrating from has no intact infrastructure and databases due to the impact of war and conflict. Quite often people fleeing conflict have little to verify themselves.
I have not backtracked once and you would be an idiot if you thought so. (I don't think you really do think so. I think you are being goofy).
I think the idea is a sound one in EXACTLY the same way that segregated swimming times is a good idea in Swedish Swimming pools. Why? Because when there was a threat that was not apparent before that risked all female swimmers and the checking system in place (ie the "groping guards") was certainly a step in the right direction and acknowledging the problem but ultimately due to its limitations was ineffective and likely to have too little effect on the overall threat, the next step was isolation until better checking system could be put in place to reduce the threat to a level were the threat and risk were monumentally diminished. That is the adoption of gender segregation.
I always DID think that the idea is a sound one. It is a LOT better than not addressing it in a way that is both different and better than now, and reduces risk and danger. However it IS an idea. A concept. A thought. How could Donald bring this good idea to life? In principle it would be easy enough but here is where the BIG problem I see. If I was a Radicalised Muslim and I knew I was not able to come in as a Muslim, I would say to the immigration officials that I was an Atheist or a Christian. If my country was on a no immigration zone, I would travel to a country that was not on the no immigration zone and come through from there.
So what might have seemed as safe and as thorough as the gender segregated swimming times now looks more like as effective as the groping guards.
You think this is backtracking? Not at all. It always was that case. In comparison to not doing anything or increasing immigration numbers, without having the better safeguards, it is way better.
Doing nothing = Obama
Increasing Muslim immigration = Hillary
Placing a freeze on Muslim immigration until a better method of vetting can be done = Trump
And I reiterate: the border controls would not have stopped Orlando. What's your plan?
I've told you this already. Even spelling out that this is not "my plan". But then you know this already.
You still are not making your point.
-
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/G8t4JHhHCo7bW/200_s.gif)
-
Al,
Yes, I live in Sweden and I'm telling you again that you got it wrong. Don't equate what a group of people supposedly did in Kalmar with the whole country, because that's just silly. But then again, most of what you're on about in this thread is silly.
Plus, you still haven't backed up any your shit: how would denying Muslims entry into the US stop anything? Where is your proof that any of it would actually change anything? Are you of the opinion that the US should now ignore those pesky treaties they signed? Etc.
Plus, how would you solve the problems with the nationals who go on shooting sprees? And why do you think so many (a majority) actually support Obama's gun control measures?
Take your time.
-
Al,
Yes, I live in Sweden and I'm telling you again that you got it wrong. Don't equate what a group of people supposedly did in Kalmar with the whole country, because that's just silly. But then again, most of what you're on about in this thread is silly.
Plus, you still haven't backed up any your shit: how would denying Muslims entry into the US stop anything? Where is your proof that any of it would actually change anything? Are you of the opinion that the US should now ignore those pesky treaties they signed? Etc.
Plus, how would you solve the problems with the nationals who go on shooting sprees? And why do you think so many (a majority) actually support Obama's gun control measures?
Take your time.
I don't need to take my time, thanks for the suggestion though. So have you lied here as well? It's put an interesting spin on things. Looking for lies from Odeon.
Sorry you don't get to wave away either women and children being raped at higher rates than most of the world nor women and children being raped in swimming pools in your country at the rates they are reported from a variety of international sources (and let's be clear, the source you showed me to evidence a rebuke of my argument showied a higher incident rate per 100 000 to US in fact it was about 150% higher to the FBI states in US).
Is the US able to legally secure it's borders and does the rights given the immigrants or refugees trump the rights of a country's citizens or their sovereignty or right to protect themselves? No. That is why Villawood detention Centre is a thing in Australia
If the FBI was able to spend more time assessing national risk (given they have over 900 national active cases in this regard) and upgrading their vetting systems to differentiate the Muslims that would be beneficial to America compared to radicalised Muslims who wish to present a real danger and do not value America, then I think that they would have a better chance to not interview Mateen twice and come away with nothing. It's no point if months later they say "Oh we probably should have investigated a bit more. Perhaps we were not comprehensive enough"
-
You should have taken your time because this is just sad. You're now actively confusing things but still lack a logical argument of any kind. I did chuckle at this last bit, though:
If the FBI was able to spend more time assessing national risk (given they have over 900 national active cases in this regard) and upgrading their vetting systems to differentiate the Muslims that would be beneficial to America compared to radicalised Muslims who wish to present a real danger and do not value America, then I think that they would have a better chance to not interview Mateen twice and come away with nothing. It's no point if months later they say "Oh we probably should have investigated a bit more. Perhaps we were not comprehensive enough"
This is actually hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.
-
My disgust and stuff with humanity grows every day!
-
You should have taken your time because this is just sad. You're now actively confusing things but still lack a logical argument of any kind. I did chuckle at this last bit, though:
If the FBI was able to spend more time assessing national risk (given they have over 900 national active cases in this regard) and upgrading their vetting systems to differentiate the Muslims that would be beneficial to America compared to radicalised Muslims who wish to present a real danger and do not value America, then I think that they would have a better chance to not interview Mateen twice and come away with nothing. It's no point if months later they say "Oh we probably should have investigated a bit more. Perhaps we were not comprehensive enough"
This is actually hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.
I snorted tea out of my nose.
-
This is how I see it.
Sweden's population is a little over 9 million.
France is a little over 64 million.
The US has an estimated population of 323 million as of 2016.
Actually for the size of the country, the diversity, and the population, I think it could be a lot worse.
Russia (over 143 million, and a lot bigger) has stricter gun laws, and double the murder rate.
Mexico has passed some very strict gun laws over the years, hasn't helped them much either. They still beat us by a mile.
Some might say well you can expect that...damn crazy Russians...crazy Mexicans.
But the US is full of crazy Russians, Mexicans, Hungarians, Africans, Irish, Italians, Jamaicans, Chinese, Germans, etc.
Find another country as diverse and as big as this one...pack them all in and tell them to "play nice" and see how it goes.
Honestly I feel Orlando shouldn't have happened. This guy was reported by the owner of the gun shop, this guy was investigated prior by them (twice)...I think someone was asleep at the wheel and not doing their job.
We do not need more gun laws, BUT we DO need to boldly enforce the ones already on the books.
This IS the standard NRA talking point, but actually believing it puts you in the very small minority. 77% of Americans are supportive of new gun laws right now. Universal background checks and not allowing sales to people on a terrorist watchlist.
Now see, you got me wrong again.
I do think we should have THOSE particular laws on the books.
I mainly wanted to state before that this guy could have been stopped with existing laws.
I also feel that that 77% number you mentioned will likely go down after most of this newness wears off this latest attack.
-
:fp: The simplistic stupidity astounds me and makes me weep for humanity! How many more of these massacres do we have to endure or survive??? If my daughter or wife was killed by this. I would make it my life's work to hunt down and KILL wayne lapierre for his complicity.
-
:fp: The simplistic stupidity astounds me and makes me weep for humanity! How many more of these massacres do we have to endure or survive??? If my daughter or wife was killed by this. I would make it my life's work to hunt down and KILL wayne lapierre for his complicity.
What weapon would you use to kill Lapierre? :orly:
-
:fp: The simplistic stupidity astounds me and makes me weep for humanity! How many more of these massacres do we have to endure or survive??? If my daughter or wife was killed by this. I would make it my life's work to hunt down and KILL wayne lapierre for his complicity.
What weapon would you use to kill Lapierre? :orly:
Any idiot would know my weapon of choice.........an AR-15! The irony would be delicious!
-
I figured you would use a knife like the civilized folk. :zoinks:
-
My American Friends, the 4th of July is coming up soon. Keep yourselves safe and in good company.
Do not rely on the FBI to protect you.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/23/fbi-comey-isil-domestic-probes/74455460/
FBI Director James Comey says
"Because the pace of the investigations has varied in the last several months, Comey said it was still unclear whether the bureau had the necessary resources to meet the demand. Comey referred to a particularly taxing period in mid-summer when federal authorities expressed public concern about the prospect of an attack around the July Fourth holiday."
How many investigations are there? 900. No that is not international investigations or even total investigations on all things they may investigation. This is specifically investigations that are "U.S.-based extremist inquiries"
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=james+comey+900+active+investigation
If they are not handling the the threat of Islamic Radicalisation here why bring in more people at risk of bringing with them the same nasty perverted radicalised violent ideologies, if they cannot cope with the risk at hand?
What risk?
Boston Bombings
San Bernadino
Chattanooga
Orlando
and of course the big one, 9/11
Did the FBI stop any of them? Are any of the 900 going to be one of them? Ones that slip through the cracks?
See I am not fear-mongering here, at least not intentionally. I am simply said "It does not make sense to pretend that there is no problem" or "Even that if there is a problem that the FBI is on top of it"
Its not up to me to assess what is the right level of risk or the strength of the vetting process by which the FBI makes their standard in vetting and investigation.
But my thinking that an idea on minimising threat in a country by someone both in the country and potentially in a position to minimise things is hardly bigoted or outlandish. Neither is it terribly difficult to see that there are not a lot of other options. If you think increasing Muslim immigration will have negligible effect on terrorist attacks of a Radicalised Islamic Fundamentalist persuasion, you CAN think that. I think you would be wrong. If you think that business as normal will improve things? I think you are wrong. If you think that vetting processes are able to differentiate Radicalised terrorist from Moderate Muslim, I think you are wrong. That leaves us with approximately one other option. Can think of some other idea, I am happy to at least consider it.
Just keep in mind one thing. If the Orlando gunman, was ONLY a threat because he had a gun, you are naive at best. He had picked his target and planned it all out and was driven by the very forced and ideology as mentioned above. That kind of hate would have meant if he had not access to guns, he would have used a pipe bomb or set a fire at the exits or something equally as barbaric. It was not a gun that made this possible, it was his belief system and the threat he posed with that. A threat that the FBI was alerted to but did not vet well enough. A mistake they are likely to repeat over and over when they do not have all the information and databases and communication records that they had with Mateen.
If we are silly enough to buy the whole 'Its a gun problem", what effect would this have to someone like Mateen when they weaponise their hate through other equally effective means? Nothing? I suppose then it will just be a series of lone "Crazy" people and "Radicalised Islamic Fundamentalism" would never be the issue. A short list of the top of my head was listed above and the papers are always telling us of the FBI thwarting a threat here and there, but this list WILL grow and "toxic masculinity" can be blamed, or "gun violence" or "mentally ill loners being crazy" but unless someone can rightly put a finger without kowtowing to pressure of offense or against calls of Islamaphobia or Racism or whatever else, that list will grow and grow and grow.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/
What is the FBI doing about the furniture?
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/
What is the FBI doing about the furniture?
Good question??
-
They're staking out Ikea in search of more evidence and looking for hidden contraband in the Swedish meatballs.
-
They're staking out Ikea in search of more evidence and looking for hidden contraband in the Swedish meatballs.
THOSE BASTARDS.......They killed Kenny, too! :grrr:
-
Kenny who? :-\
-
Kenny who? :-\
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/southpark/images/6/6f/KennyMcCormick.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/270?cb=20160409020502)
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Kenny_McCormick
-
Kenny who? :-\
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/southpark/images/6/6f/KennyMcCormick.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/270?cb=20160409020502)
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Kenny_McCormick
Never watched that show. :-[
-
Kenny who? :-\
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/southpark/images/6/6f/KennyMcCormick.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/270?cb=20160409020502)
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Kenny_McCormick
Never watched that show. :-[
A decent show when it started and for a few years! Than, like a lot of shows has long since gone past it's shelf life!
-
I never felt it was interesting enough. But then, I miss a lot of shows.