92 replies to this topic

[ccabal86]

French police officer and his wife was also killed, ISIS lone wolf again. Had been sentenced for 3 years of prison for conspiracy to commit a terror attack. Got off with good behavior after 2.5

Edited by ccabal86, 14 June 2016 - 07:39 PM.

[onbekende]

 

My cat does that to in her sleep, shall I hang her?

Someone put a nice blog on this here, speaking that ISIS is becoming an idea rather then an organisation. Lone wolfs will become frequenter before any social/moral pressure will come forward to stop this.

I don't get what you mean by that first sentence...BUT you are right on the second part.

 

Guess you mean the blog thing

 

It was about the ISIS threat being less from the organisation itself (sure it send out "agents") but more about sympathizers who just followed the "wrong" newssites and were alienated by society. Basically it's a cult without a central HR department running the individuals. We saw the same happen with AQ back in the day, just to a lesser extant due to smaller internet proliferation and a better social climate in general.

[hilowe]

Sister Midnight, on 13 Jun 2016 - 15:25, said: Did you know that in most home invasions that end in someone being shot by the homeowner's gun it is the homeowner who has gotten shot by their own weapon? I've heard this statistic thrown out so many times, but I've never seen the study that actually found this. Do you have a reference for it?

 
I was given this information from a friend who was a police officer for more than 20 years.  He also worked for the US government, but I don't know what he did for them.

OK, thanks.

Like I said, I've heard that repeated so often, everyone believes it's true.

When people start throwing out statistics, I try to look at the source. I've seen too many times (especially when it comes to pro/anti gun talks), people make the numbers lie in their favor (by either counting something they probably shouldn't or not counting something they probably should).

[DarkFox]

It might be strictly state law, but every philadelphia bar downtown has to have two armed(not gun) guards outside as well as one inside(w/gun). and the capacity of these are around 100 or 200. Given, philly is a little different, I believe that enhanced security would help

 

I could not find any law stating mandatory security for bars in any state. I can imagine that many bars have them especially the larger ones that can fit a large amount of people at busy times.

 

Because 9/10 bars around here have no security whatsoever. Just bartenders.

 

 

That seems a bit generous, your area must have a bunch of hooligans! I have only ever see security in a bar during ultra peak times at some, and only during massive events at others. Though my sample set is limited to Washington and Oregon.

[Required]

It's not just the violence, but also the scope of destruction that the modern automatic rifles can cause. A pistol will defend you just as well as a rifle, but you'll also be reducing the possibility of a person going berserk and killing many others because he had an automatic firearm that was made to kill many people. Plus, it'd be easier to contain him. 

 

The guns protecting people from their govt. is a joke. This might've been true in the 1800's but in the present times the militaryweapons vastly outclass what you can get in a gun shop and in any armed confrontation between civilians and state, the civilials have a verylow chance of doing any considerable damage.

 

It is time the gun laws are made stricter, so that these kind of incidents can't happen in the future.

 

 

Atleast there that was one off. These kind of things, school shootings etc. happen frequently in the US. All because of extra lax gun laws and flawed ideas of liberty. Liberty is good,  but not when it infringes on others' right to live.

 

 

A handgun's only purpose is to fight your way back to your rifle.

Citizens have been for all intents and purposes been unable to own or acquire automatic weapons since the 1934 NFA.

I agree, it is a joke that firearms will defend The People, they've allowed themselves to be increasingly de-fanged for nearly one hundred years. Firearms are Liberty's Teeth.

Liberty is good.

 

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

 

 

Increased safety creates jobs too need I remind you.

 

Broken Window Theory of Economics.

 

 

 

 

 

The world is a scary place. Removing peoples' ability to protect themselves in it is immoral.

[Black Rook]

How does the rest of the world get on without such heavy weaponry.

[Fox Fire]

How does the rest of the world get on without such heavy weaponry.

Like this?

 

[Black Rook]

You bring up Paris but America has had more mass shootings than anyone else.

[Fox Fire]

You bring up Paris but America has had more mass shootings than anyone else.

There are 25 guns for every 100 residents in Switzerland which has lax gun laws compared to it's neighbors and a very low gun crime rate. In any case, stricter gun laws wouldn't have done much here. For example, if we had laws similar to maybe Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, etc, this guy would have still been able to buy said guns because he had a legit reason and multiple weapons licenses. There was no reason to not sell him a gun other than the fact that he was on a terror watch list. 

[hilowe]

There was no reason to not sell him a gun other than the fact that he was on a terror watch list.

All this means is, yeah, someone thinks he's done some fishy things, but we don't have anywhere near enough proof for FBI or anyone to do more than say we suspect him. Who suspects him? Don't know, because there are way too many ways to get on those watch lists.

[Black Rook]

And he committed domestic abuse against his wife, all I know is over here if you commit any violent crime the first thing you lose is your gun licence.

[hilowe]

And he committed domestic abuse against his wife, all I know is over here if you commit any violent crime the first thing you lose is your gun licence.

The case was dropped, at least according to this article.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-orlando-shooting-mom-domestic-arrest-20160613-story.html

I'm fairly certain there are federal laws against people convicted of domestic violence having firearms. Since this guy wasn't convicted, that law didn't come into play.

[Sister Midnight]

And he committed domestic abuse against his wife, all I know is over here if you commit any violent crime the first thing you lose is your gun licence.

The case was dropped, at least according to this article.http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-orlando-shooting-mom-domestic-arrest-20160613-story.htmlI'm fairly certain there are federal laws against people convicted of domestic violence having firearms. Since this guy wasn't convicted, that law didn't come into play.

Your link leads to a story about the shooter growing up in a home where domestic violence may have occurred, not about his own domestic violence. I have not looked much into whether he was convicted or not because I have been trying to limit my exposure to this whole thing because it is depressing me too much. But I do have this, which is somewhat more relavent. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/omar-mateen-domestic-violence-clue-murderous-future

I believe that Omar Mateen was probably gay or bisexual, but also homophobic. There is a defense mechanism called reaction formation. In short, you have a urges to do something you find unacceptable, so you suppress those urges and come out vehemently in opposition to those urges. For example, someone may have an urge to steal, but he finds the idea of being a criminal to be highly distasteful, so in order to get relief from the distress caused by this, he becomes a cop. That is example of reaction formation being used in what could be a constructive way. Mr. Mateen was "a regular" at this gay bar, he had urges, he turned those urges into hate, and decided to kill as many "queers" as he could. I believe he was seriously mentally ill, and the call to the cops claiming fidelity to ISIL presents itself as almost an afterthought, to give his f--ked up behavior meaning. As I said I've been limiting my information intake, but this makes the most sense given what I have been absorbing.

Would this man have had access to legal assault weapons in the vast majority of first world nations with strict gun control laws? Almost certainly not. When Austrailia put strict gun control in place, gun violence almost completely disappeared. Yes, I'm sure someone will bring up some loosely related statistic or incident from somewhere in the world, but the fact of the matter is that nations with gun control have less gun violence.

I find it so curious that people are so unwilling to respectfully entertain opposing points of view.

[ccabal86]

The wife may have been in on the whole thing too:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/investigators-turn-focus-omar-mateens-wife-criminal-charges/story?id=39867320

[hilowe]

And he committed domestic abuse against his wife, all I know is over here if you commit any violent crime the first thing you lose is your gun licence.

The case was dropped, at least according to this article.http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-orlando-shooting-mom-domestic-arrest-20160613-story.htmlI'm fairly certain there are federal laws against people convicted of domestic violence having firearms. Since this guy wasn't convicted, that law didn't come into play.

Your link leads to a story about the shooter growing up in a home where domestic violence may have occurred, not about his own domestic violence. I have not looked much into whether he was convicted or not because I have been trying to limit my exposure to this whole thing because it is depressing me too much. But I do have this, which is somewhat more relavent. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/omar-mateen-domestic-violence-clue-murderous-future

Oops. Fast read the title, missed it was his mom. Fast read the article, didn't pick up that it was about his parents. Double fail.

[ccabal86]

Once again, I'm going to leave this article here, in hopes that someone will actually read it. Maajid Nawaz once again manages to impress by grabbing the crux of the issue at hand

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/admit-it-these-terrorists-are-muslims.html

[Sister Midnight]

[hilowe]

In my mind, they don't, just like the Westboro Baptists out of Kansas don't represent all Christians (I have no idea who the first four in your image are, unfortunately). They each represent very extreme forms of their respective religions.

My issue is that, we have a group that has pledged to attach the US, and has the equipment to make Syrian passports. Why shouldn't we be restricting people from areas like that? We know that there are numerous Syrians that have emigrated to Europe. Yes, some are good people, but how many are not?

I think we need to slow down a little bit with the relocation of refugees. Figure out a way to effectively vet the people first. I've read that FBI Director Comey worries about gaps in our intelligence, so why shouldn't we, who have access to a lot less information than he has, also be worried?

[ccabal86]

If this image is a reaction to the article I've posted, then I can tell you haven't read it.

[Sister Midnight]

No i didn't read it.  I saw the beginning and assumed.  Sorry.  I'll read it.

 

If this image is a reaction to the article I've posted, then I can tell you haven't read it.

 

Well color me ashamed!  That really is an excellent article and my meme had nothing to do with what it really said.  Again, sorry.