Orlando

[SIZE=12pt]6[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

We have been through this multiple times already, why do you continually bring up arguments that you know didn’t stand up to scrutiny all the other times they were presented?

 

[SIZE=12pt]6 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Why single out nations of Christian heritage? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Homosexuality was illegal in the UK up until 1967 but discrimination carried on a lot longer (try and see the film Pride) and we had Section 28 up until 2000. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=12pt]6[/SIZE]

I‘m against the police been armed (except in certain limited cases) and in general the police in the UK are not armed (I believe some do have tasers).

As to police shooting people dead it is very rare in the 24 years to 2015 only 55 people had been fatally shot by UK police.

By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

Thing is that in the UK most politicians (on the left and right) and police officers don’t want the police to be armed.

“A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty” BBC

 

6

Can such groups collectively commit acts that can be criticized or is it subgroups or individuals that happen to be part of the group who do or say things that can open them to criticism?

I mean if an individual gay person commits a crime does that mean all gays can be criticized or just that individual? Can all Muslims be criticized for the acts of IS?

If a feminist, Christian, cross-dressing, gay, black woman of Jewish descent murders someone does that mean all the groups are tainted and can be legitimate targets for blanket criticism?

Also I don’t see straight white guys being particularly ‘stabbed’ why do you think that?

 

6

I don’t want anyone ‘fucking up’ if you mean by that shooting at and possibly killing someone. That is not always possible but I’d want to try and lessen it as much as possible. Are you saying you think Trayvon Martin deserved to be shot because Zimmerman thought he was a boogyman. I’d not want to live in a society where any individual can decide who they think is a boogyman and kill them. I mean Mateen seems to have thought the people in the Orlando nightclub were boogymen .

 

How exactly did 9/11 happen when the US is the greatest country on the planet and has the bestest military and intelligence in the whole wide world?

Stupid comment.

 

I feel like I should clarify again, in reference to Shaman stating that we can't round up all assault rifles -

I think there is a major miscommunication between people who are pro gun control and people who are anti gun control.

So perhaps for the sake of further discussion we should define exactly what one means by gun control.

Generally I think when people talk of banning assault rifles, it means banning the future manufacture and sale of assault rifles. It would be impossible to enforce any kind of law against owning one, and actually "rounding up" assault rifles from people who have already purchased them legally would be political suicide so I don't think any politician would try to introduce such an extreme measure. Generally when any kind of gun ban happens there is instead a voluntary buy back program.

As far as I know, no other gun control is even on the table right now. I haven't heard anyone talk about banning hand guns, shot guns, etc, or forcibly taking away legally owned guns from gun owners.

 

[conspiracy theory removed]

You and Balbus might not want police and government armed (that includes the military too btw). But you do realize armed police officers were what stopped the Orlando shooter from killing more people, right? What a dumb idea.

I wouldn't mind. Seeing how in order legally conceal a weapon you must undergo testing, fingerprinting, background checking, and government documentation. Most sane people don't carry weapons out in the open anyway because it makes people nervous and suspicious to see non-uniformed people walk around with guns.

Nothing is foolproof.

Fundamentalist Christians aren't murdering homosexuals in mass. They're just blowing hot air. Fundamentalist Christians picket gay funerals, radical Muslims create gay funerals.
So why do you keep putting Islam on a higher pedestal than Christianity and homosexuality?

Well the good news is that there is hope for Islam to become more culturally accepting, and certain nations prove it. I don't hate all muslims; I already said I live with a Muslim from Senegal. And while Senegal is predominantly muslim, my roommate says that lots of religions coexist there just fine. He's also OK with me being atheist. I haven't been to Senegal to know see everything for myself. But alas, too many muslims hold a hostile opinion toward all non believers and infidels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anar9vIGGiY

I wouldn't mind muslims making their way into new countries to seek better livelihoods, but their religious culture is what turned their nations into uninhabitable fascist cesspools. If they want to come to live in my country, I'd welcome them just fine, just as long as they don't bring over their intolerant ideologies to turn my country into an islamic state. Germany and Sweden are heading that direction unfortunately.

 

The 15 hour filibuster got some results! There are two separate votes in the Senate scheduled for Monday, on denying legal gun sales to people on the terror watch list, and expanding criminal background checks to cover gun shows.

 

Not sure what you are saying with that last sentence. I'm sure you agree that even though it is a hard task to figure out the motive its always worth it.

About the fact that more gays were killed in one night 'than in 40+ years of gaybashing', don't you think this has a lot to do with the fact that even though this was done by one guy: the main reason he could kill so many was due to the kind of gun he had?

And no, that it is hard to keep this kind of gun away from this kind of people doesn't mean your country shouldn't make a serious effort diminishing the possibility. By revising the policies and how they are enforced.

 

I'd like to say not necessarily to that one. Training and discipline are the most important factors in my opinion. Of course having a weapon that sprays on full auto in an enclosed space make things much easier but two things come to my mind:
1. Remember that guy on the Eurostar? He came out of the bathroom with an AK and enough ammo. But he forgot to load or had the safety on (i forget which) so he wasn't actually able to get a shot off before the three guys on the train took him down.
2. Immagine this: the same guy goes into the club with two handguns and enough ammunition and shoots and kills maybe "only" 30-35 people. Remember that most handguns can take about 15 rounds.

 

Sure it does. As soon as you ban something, the manufactures of that said item will continue operation under the radar.

Because some people keep comparing islam to christianity in this thread. And I'm here to point out that there's no non-muslim country left on earth that openly executes homosexuals.

You do realize that even though a law changes, it takes time for the culture to fully adapt. My home state legalized medical marijuana in 1998. But it took 16 more years for recreational legalization to take place. And even though it's now legal, there's still lots of prejudice about it around here. Many counties in the more conservative areas in my state don't allow dispensaries to operate. And employers still won't hire job applicants with marijuana in their piss. I'm hoping it will all change in due time.

Are you aware of social justice warrior culture on college campuses?
[sarcasm] of course white males can't criticize or use any micro-aggressions any of those groups listed! They have hetero white male privilege! [/sarcasm]

 

That's ok. No harm no foul. I find using a [/sarcasm] seems to prevent confusing the literal with the sarcastic.

This assumes the good guy with the gun always wins. That's only in movies unfortunately. However, here's a long list of instances where armed civilians prevented heinous crimes:

Chicago - http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/concealed-carrier-in-chicago-takes-out-armed-robber-at-corner-store/
Seattle - http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/13/us/washington-7-eleven-customer-shoots-attacker/
Portland - http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/chris-dumm/stop-bad-guy-gun-strip-club/
Arizona - http://gunsnfreedom.com/az-mass-shooting-is-thwarted-by-concealed-carrier-who-shoots-man-armed-with-rifle-at-party/1527
Michigan -http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/09/22/customer-carrying-concealed-weapon-shoots-suspected-bank-robber
And a bunch more you can find online - http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/02/02/10-stories-that-prove-guns-save-lives-n1503549

No I'm not. But actions speak louder than words.

Yes but they are starting to look like a minority voice
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/51-of-u-s-muslims-want-sharia-60-of-young-muslims-more-loyal-to-islam-than-to-u-s

 

Social media giant Facebook is now Sharia Compliant http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/17/facebook-bans-gay-magazine-critical-islam/

Ironic considering facebook is run by a Jew

 

Did they use full automatic weapons? If not, maybe you can agree those are not really needed in the general public.

Not always, sometimes it matters who's speaking. The supposed spiritual leader of a community for example.

The majority is not radical in any way, so if you are still ignoring that maybe it depends where and what you are looking at. I notice you often come with sources that are a bit questionable. Like the statistic that says a 100% of UK muslims find homosexuality is unacceptable

But if staying on topic matters in essence this thread really shouldn't be about islam. I felt like saying this again because your latest post:

Just made me wonder how much this is in relation to the original topic of this thread. Not saying we shouldn't discuss this at all (on the contrary) but perhaps it deserves its own thread or to be discussed in a thread that is already about this.

 

on the face of it, your comment paired with the pic appears to support your point,
BUT
in the country where this picture was taken or any other similar, how often do you think mass shootings such as happened in Orlando happen?

My point is the horrors we hear of from those areas are of a different nature, done mainly by those in power and/or with the blessing of those in power, but I very seriously doubt that 1-2 lone criminal gunmen would be able to massacre 50+ people in a mosque without being turned into Swiss cheese goo very quickly. Unless a person has a definite death wish, committing a crime in the town that pic was taken wouldn't end very well for the criminal.
Here they get 3 squares and a cot, there they get their head removed.
So while those areas are rife with gun violence, it is not of the same type, therefore your use of this picture doesn't support the idea that lax or no gun control doesn't deter crime. It certainly works to enforce the laws in those countries.

 

I don't know that open carry prevents gun violence. I think if a gun is there, then the temptation to use it for the wrong reason is also there. That's my philosophy.