America, shooting, again??
Discussion
Whereas the trumpers want to talk about the Islamic bogeyman as nothing else matters.. or try to stand away from him as he's about as politically toxic as ebola.
Your election choices are a case of ' so, sir/madam, would you prefer ebola or the bubonic plague with your freedom fries?'
Your election choices are a case of ' so, sir/madam, would you prefer ebola or the bubonic plague with your freedom fries?'
Sam All said:
Jimbeaux said:
. Radical Islam is as much a political dogma as it is religious. The Dems don't want to talk about Islamic terror. They want to settle back onto the comfortable old issues of gay rights and gun control.
All 3 need to be tackled head on, without fear or favour.Jimbeaux said:
There was religious objects along with Islamic pamphlets around his apartment. He was accounted to various radical Muslim internet sites. Radical Islam is as much a political dogma as it is religious. The Dems don't want to talk about Islamic terror. They want to settle back onto the comfortable old issues of gay rights and gun control.
Religious objects? Pamphlets? Sounds weak to me. I guess more will be uncovered. 'Radical' Muslim but is known to be a drunk party goer in a gay club? Family and friends state he wasn't religious either. Something isn't adding updrivin_me_nuts said:
Whereas the trumpers want to talk about the Islamic bogeyman as nothing else matters.. or try to stand away from him as he's about as politically toxic as ebola.
Your election choices are a case of ' so, sir/madam, would you prefer ebola or the bubonic plague with your freedom fries?'
bogeyman? It's a very real problem.Your election choices are a case of ' so, sir/madam, would you prefer ebola or the bubonic plague with your freedom fries?'
Oakey said:
I suspect a lot of them are against mental health checks for gun owners because they may have an inkling they'll be the first to be denied their right to own firearms.
After evaluating 5ohm would you give him the green light to own a gun?
I agree but wouldn't want to be the one to deliver the news or to attempt to remove his guns from his house...After evaluating 5ohm would you give him the green light to own a gun?
silent ninja said:
Jimbeaux said:
There was religious objects along with Islamic pamphlets around his apartment. He was accounted to various radical Muslim internet sites. Radical Islam is as much a political dogma as it is religious. The Dems don't want to talk about Islamic terror. They want to settle back onto the comfortable old issues of gay rights and gun control.
Religious objects? Pamphlets? Sounds weak to me. I guess more will be uncovered. 'Radical' Muslim but is known to be a drunk party goer in a gay club? Family and friends state he wasn't religious either. Something isn't adding uprobbocop33 said:
I keep hearing this oh its such a small segment of muslims,oh its so rare,oh they're in the vast majority of cases,'really nice',b
ks,it doesn't matter how 'small' this segment of people are,its that they are fking aholes and the destruction and anguish they are causing countries all over the world is what matters.
Around 1 in 7 of the Uk,s prison population is Muslim,1 in 5 in some prisons,that's a fairly 'large' amount since they're all so nice by nature.
Have you thought they may simply be claiming to be Muslim? For example many people tick the 'Christian' box on surveys and the census despite not actually attending church. ks,it doesn't matter how 'small' this segment of people are,its that they are fking aholes and the destruction and anguish they are causing countries all over the world is what matters.Around 1 in 7 of the Uk,s prison population is Muslim,1 in 5 in some prisons,that's a fairly 'large' amount since they're all so nice by nature.
Edited by robbocop33 on Wednesday 15th June 19:55
There may be other reasons as well, such as access to different foods, time out for prayer etc?
silent ninja said:
Religious objects? Pamphlets? Sounds weak to me. I guess more will be uncovered. 'Radical' Muslim but is known to be a drunk party goer in a gay club? Family and friends state he wasn't religious either. Something isn't adding up
The assumption that all jihadis will look and act like Abu Hamza is what stops it adding up. ISIS even expressly told "mujhadeen" in the wesr not to do this.http://m.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-Threat/ISIS-te...
Blend in. Wear a cross, use normal aftershave even if it haa alcohol in it.
Don't think they actually OK'd drinking alcohol but at least one of the Bataclan killers did.
They will still get their 71 virgins because in the big book of peace 9.111 the peacemaker in chief says:
Quran 9:111 said:
"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
A binding promise feom God himself and as far as I can tell unqualified by any other requirements.5ohmustang said:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/14/muslim-ter...
Meanwhile your wife is being tortured and having her throat slashed.
What is your wife able to use to other than words?
Whereas if the murderous maniac had been able to walk into a shop and buy a semi-automatic weapon, that would have somehow been better?Meanwhile your wife is being tortured and having her throat slashed.
What is your wife able to use to other than words?
Edited by 5ohmustang on Tuesday 14th June 21:33
drivin_me_nuts said:
I'm not so sure if in the UK we are a bit smug - I do think that most of us, the first time we see an armed policeman at the airport, feel a degree of apprehension as the reality check of the modern world kicks in.
I think as a nation we prefer our police unarmed - and long may it last. There is no reason what so ever for people in the uk to be armed. America, well your back story is so different, but from the outside looking in, the case for casual guns seems hard to justify.
I am happy that in the UK the police are largely unarmed, and 'police by consent', I'm also happy that there are teams who are trained to a high standard who are armed. It's always a tad weird to see an armed cop on the streets.I think as a nation we prefer our police unarmed - and long may it last. There is no reason what so ever for people in the uk to be armed. America, well your back story is so different, but from the outside looking in, the case for casual guns seems hard to justify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
It strikes me that both the UK and the US have a sort of irrational blind spot about guns but in very different ways.
The US has a sort of fetishistic worship of the things. Whether you're worried about crime, economic and social collapse, foreign invasion, overmighty feds or the martians landing all is well so long as you can shoot it. It seems that the massive network of government spies, surveillance, the military might and the zealous and trigger happy police force don't really figure so long so long as people have guns.
This logic isn't applied to land mines or handgrenades which might be useful for repelling a foreign invasion or tyrannical government. Let alone anything that would be worth employing against the US governments fighter jets, bombers, tanks, ships and the rest of its vast array of military hardware.
Britain on the other hand has a sort of prehistoric fear of the bang bang stick, where the simple logic that less guns equals less shootings is so self evident as to be beyond question.
We cling to the fact that our police aren't routinely armed as though this were some sort of indicator of a happy society were violence and criminality were unheard of even as police walk around in stab vests with tazers, pepper spray, batons and just about everything else except firearms. But all this is susended around parliament, where the police most certainly do have guns.
Those people in Britain who do have guns often seem to be the most enthusiastic supporters of gun control. Treating it apparently as some sort of secret society where they know the local police (who come and inspect their houses pretty much at will) and are glad that the ordinary people don't have access to the same grave responsibility of owning a. 22 rifle for shooting rabbits.
It's all a bit daft on both sides.
The problem is ultimately people wanting to kill people. Guns are a convenient way to do that but not the only way. They're also a viable defence against that in certain specific circumstances, but not a guarantee of peace and harmony.
No quick fixes or answers, I just wish there was a bit of maturity on both sides in both countries about what are inanimate objects, but lethal in the wrong hands.
If the same logic applied to cars or power tools in some country it would be a strange place indeed.
The US has a sort of fetishistic worship of the things. Whether you're worried about crime, economic and social collapse, foreign invasion, overmighty feds or the martians landing all is well so long as you can shoot it. It seems that the massive network of government spies, surveillance, the military might and the zealous and trigger happy police force don't really figure so long so long as people have guns.
This logic isn't applied to land mines or handgrenades which might be useful for repelling a foreign invasion or tyrannical government. Let alone anything that would be worth employing against the US governments fighter jets, bombers, tanks, ships and the rest of its vast array of military hardware.
Britain on the other hand has a sort of prehistoric fear of the bang bang stick, where the simple logic that less guns equals less shootings is so self evident as to be beyond question.
We cling to the fact that our police aren't routinely armed as though this were some sort of indicator of a happy society were violence and criminality were unheard of even as police walk around in stab vests with tazers, pepper spray, batons and just about everything else except firearms. But all this is susended around parliament, where the police most certainly do have guns.
Those people in Britain who do have guns often seem to be the most enthusiastic supporters of gun control. Treating it apparently as some sort of secret society where they know the local police (who come and inspect their houses pretty much at will) and are glad that the ordinary people don't have access to the same grave responsibility of owning a. 22 rifle for shooting rabbits.
It's all a bit daft on both sides.
The problem is ultimately people wanting to kill people. Guns are a convenient way to do that but not the only way. They're also a viable defence against that in certain specific circumstances, but not a guarantee of peace and harmony.
No quick fixes or answers, I just wish there was a bit of maturity on both sides in both countries about what are inanimate objects, but lethal in the wrong hands.
If the same logic applied to cars or power tools in some country it would be a strange place indeed.
AJS- said:
The problem is ultimately people wanting to kill people. Guns are a convenient way to do that but not the only way. ...
If the same logic applied to cars or power tools in some country it would be a strange place indeed.
I'm quite glad that the killers of Lee Rigby had to resort to sharing a knackered old pistol rather than popping out to a shop and buying assault weapons. If the same logic applied to cars or power tools in some country it would be a strange place indeed.
Cars and power tools aren't primarily designed to kill things, so, yes, that would be odd.
klootzak said:
Jimbeaux said:
It is called a "mystery". I suppose the answer to their mystery is that:
1)They have less regard for what they may see as "not their laws".
2)They commit more crimes.
You missed this part of the article then ...1)They have less regard for what they may see as "not their laws".
2)They commit more crimes.
"In 2010, the then Chief Inspector of Prisons, Dame Anne Owers, published a report on Muslims in jail, in which she linked the growth in numbers to the age and socio-economic profiles of the Muslim population in general.
"Both are powerful predictors of involvement in the criminal justice system," she wrote, "and Muslims in Britain have a notably younger age profile than non-Muslims and are more likely to come from lower socio-economic groups."
Last year, 58% of Muslim prisoners were aged 30 or under, compared with 45% of the overall population, and in what's termed the "secure youth estate" - institutions which hold 10- to 17-year-olds - almost one in five prisoners was Muslim.
Amal Imad, a researcher for the charity Muslim Aid, agrees with Dame Anne's findings from five years ago that poverty - in particular not having enough money to feed a family - is a key factor driving crime, and therefore imprisonment, among Muslims.
"The underlying issue is economic crisis," she says."
Not much of a mystery really. And not much to do with their religion, per se.
k
I am not in line with those who advocate zero guns. While that is unconstitutional, the main reason is that then only the thugs or terrorists will have them. I am in favor of more stringent background checks. There needs to be background checks at gun shows, I think not having checks at shows is stupid. I believe those on a (name the crime) watch list should not be allowed to buy a gun. Now, there needs to be a due process and better management of said lists so they are accurate, both stopping criminals from falling through the cracks or, on the other extreme, some government worker expressing their opinion by adding someone to it without cause. Lastly, reform of the medical privacy laws regarding diagnosed mental patients' information if purchasing guns.
Jimbeaux said:
I am not in line with those who advocate zero guns. While that is unconstitutional, the main reason is that then only the thugs or terrorists will have them. I am in favor of more stringent background checks. There needs to be background checks at gun shows, I think not having checks at shows is stupid. I believe those on a (name the crime) watch list should not be allowed to buy a gun. Now, there needs to be a due process and better management of said lists so they are accurate, both stopping criminals from falling through the cracks or, on the other extreme, some government worker expressing their opinion by adding someone to it without cause. Lastly, reform of the medical privacy laws regarding diagnosed mental patients' information if purchasing guns.
The 'gun show loophole' is vastly overstated.It isn't true that there are no checks done on guns bought at gun shows. Gun shows are mostly populated by registered dealers who are selling guns as a business so anything bought through them must be subject to the normal background checks and waiting periods.
Private individuals sometimes take stalls at guns shows to sell things from their personal collections but cannot sell things by way of trade. It is a transaction between private individuals involving their private property so is subject to whatever laws govern such transactions. As they aren't commercial sales they don't have to be background checked. It's no different from two members from a local hunting group agreeing to buy/sell a gun between them.
The exception to the above is California (there may be others) where any firearm transfer, even between private individuals, must be completed by a Federally licensed dealer who must perform the back ground checks. Both parties must be physically present at the gun dealers premises at the time takes place, I think.
Jimbeaux said:
I am not in line with those who advocate zero guns. While that is unconstitutional, the main reason is that then only the thugs or terrorists will have them. I am in favor of more stringent background checks. There needs to be background checks at gun shows, I think not having checks at shows is stupid. I believe those on a (name the crime) watch list should not be allowed to buy a gun. Now, there needs to be a due process and better management of said lists so they are accurate, both stopping criminals from falling through the cracks or, on the other extreme, some government worker expressing their opinion by adding someone to it without cause. Lastly, reform of the medical privacy laws regarding diagnosed mental patients' information if purchasing guns.
Forgetting the legal implications (or not) of the constitution for a moment, and apologies if you've answered this before, but in terms of people being able to own firearms in the US (and using concealed carry terminology but in the context of all gun ownership), do you think that a "may issue" licensing or "shall issue" licensing would be better and why? On the assumption you favour everyone having to be licensed at all.AJL308 said:
The exception to the above is California (there may be others) where any firearm transfer, even between private individuals, must be completed by a Federally licensed dealer who must perform the back ground checks. Both parties must be physically present at the gun dealers premises at the time takes place, I think.
That seems rather sensible. I can't buy a 3ftlb air pistol without doing it face to face at a RFD here in the UK with them checking my IDMario149 said:
Jimbeaux said:
I am not in line with those who advocate zero guns. While that is unconstitutional, the main reason is that then only the thugs or terrorists will have them. I am in favor of more stringent background checks. There needs to be background checks at gun shows, I think not having checks at shows is stupid. I believe those on a (name the crime) watch list should not be allowed to buy a gun. Now, there needs to be a due process and better management of said lists so they are accurate, both stopping criminals from falling through the cracks or, on the other extreme, some government worker expressing their opinion by adding someone to it without cause. Lastly, reform of the medical privacy laws regarding diagnosed mental patients' information if purchasing guns.
Forgetting the legal implications (or not) of the constitution for a moment, and apologies if you've answered this before, but in terms of people being able to own firearms in the US (and using concealed carry terminology but in the context of all gun ownership), do you think that a "may issue" licensing or "shall issue" licensing would be better and why? On the assumption you favour everyone having to be licensed at all.You cannot have a 'may issue' system for anything because then it's far too open to abuse and the personal feelings of the licensing authority. Ie; the local Mayor's friends and political donors all get licenses but few other people do.
Even we in the UK have a 'shall issue' system for firearm and shotgun certificates. If you meet the criteria in the Firearms Acts the police have no discretion to refuse a certificate. Although NI is different.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff