crwSo you are saying this isn't islam?
Well we'll see, I don't know any other group that wears bombvests and shoots gays.
i live in Israel dude
and trust my word not all the islam religion is full of murder and evil...
dont judge people by their religion judge them by their actions.
dont say this man is bad because is killing by the name of the "islam"
say this mad is fucking evil because his mind is fucked up
[quote=crw]So you are saying this isn't islam?
Well we'll see, I don't know any other group that wears bombvests and shoots gays.[/quote]
i live in Israel dude
and trust my word not all the islam religion is full of murder and evil...
dont judge people by their religion judge them by their actions.
dont say this man is bad because is killing by the name of the "islam"
say this mad is fucking evil because his mind is fucked up
sacwe can disagree on the reasons why and what would have prevented it, but it's no secret that ISIS really loves murdering gay people.
The wider social context around gun control can't deal with individuals like these. They live apparently law abiding blameless lives of conformity until exploding. No one would deny them gun ownership on any simple clearly assessable criteria.
The best scholarly work I've seen done on the psychology of Islamist (and in general right wing) extremists identifies 4 particular personality traits that are key to the individual's motivation:
Disgust - a notion of purity or cleanliness taken to an extreme degree, it could be nationalist or racial for some right wing extremists but in Islamist cases they are noted for a hatred of homosexuality in particular and extreme sexism
Need for Closure - a preference for order, structure and certainties, and a rejection of ambiguities, which obviously leads into a strong preference for authoritarianism. Essentially they want to see the world as a simple story.
In/out group distinction - a very clear perception of a sharp distinction of being or not being in a particular group, which produces a restricted ability to form a complex view of other people. This is where identifying strongly with a particular Islamist group comes in, and why those group's ability to project a strong media image matters. Individuals who fill the other criteria are the primed but empty vessels they want their propaganda to reach.
Simplism - assigning single causes and remedies to complex situations that have complex causes and solutions, leading to ideas like killing everyone who isn't a Muslim will make the world a better place and is a good idea (or possibly that banning all Muslims from entering the US will make the world a better place and is a good idea)
This obviously doesn't describe every Muslim, and everyone described by this doesn't become an ideologically motivated mass murderer, but the links between these personality traits and extremism are not trivial, they're very strong. How this could feed into a pre-emptive solution without entering a very strange and oppressive world I don't know.
[quote=sac]we can disagree on the reasons why and what would have prevented it, but it's no secret that ISIS really loves murdering gay people.[/quote]
The wider social context around gun control can't deal with individuals like these. They live apparently law abiding blameless lives of conformity until exploding. No one would deny them gun ownership on any simple clearly assessable criteria.
The best scholarly work I've seen done on the psychology of Islamist (and in general right wing) extremists identifies 4 particular personality traits that are key to the individual's motivation:
Disgust - a notion of purity or cleanliness taken to an extreme degree, it could be nationalist or racial for some right wing extremists but in Islamist cases they are noted for a hatred of homosexuality in particular and extreme sexism
Need for Closure - a preference for order, structure and certainties, and a rejection of ambiguities, which obviously leads into a strong preference for authoritarianism. Essentially they want to see the world as a simple story.
In/out group distinction - a very clear perception of a sharp distinction of being or not being in a particular group, which produces a restricted ability to form a complex view of other people. This is where identifying strongly with a particular Islamist group comes in, and why those group's ability to project a strong media image matters. Individuals who fill the other criteria are the primed but empty vessels they want their propaganda to reach.
Simplism - assigning single causes and remedies to complex situations that have complex causes and solutions, leading to ideas like killing everyone who isn't a Muslim will make the world a better place and is a good idea (or possibly that banning all Muslims from entering the US will make the world a better place and is a good idea)
This obviously doesn't describe every Muslim, and everyone described by this doesn't become an ideologically motivated mass murderer, but the links between these personality traits and extremism are not trivial, they're very strong. How this could feed into a pre-emptive solution without entering a very strange and oppressive world I don't know.
Reero
Do you mean limit in a sense of "only x amount of permits can be given out In one year" or "x requirements must be met to require a gun"
The only "requirement" I'm against for getting a CCW is needing a "reason" for owning a gun. I always found that a bit too stringent.
In my state (AL), to be able to carry a concealed handgun you'll need to be 18 or older, pay a small fee, and basically register into a data base to say you own and are likely to carry a handgun. Enforcement is the hardest part most likely, and you don't need to be registered for CCW to actually purchase a pistol, which is the problem i think. In general, I think getting people on the books as owning concealed weapons is a good first step and a nice compromise between the current system and registering individual guns which many people are very against.
CCW laws are super cool but kinda shitty in the same way a lot of drug laws are because they put a really awkward gray area between what is considered concealed and open and leaves it up to interpretation by officers. You can open carry in my state, meaning just owning and carrying a gun is fine, but everyone needs to be able to tell at a glance. I think that leaves too much leeway for what really gets classified as open or concealed carry.
None of this directly solves the issues with gun control, but I think requiring the majority of gun owners to be registered for a CCW or something before making a purchase regardless of where the purchase is would make acquiring guns a big but tolerable pain in the ass. You'd still see crimes of passion with gun owners, but you'd see it be a lot harder to get access to firearms if you weren't vetted at least a little bit. Most guys I know are registered for CCW anyway but they'd probably hate it idk
[quote=Reero]
Do you mean limit in a sense of "only x amount of permits can be given out In one year" or "x requirements must be met to require a gun"
The only "requirement" I'm against for getting a CCW is needing a "reason" for owning a gun. I always found that a bit too stringent.[/quote]
In my state (AL), to be able to carry a concealed handgun you'll need to be 18 or older, pay a small fee, and basically register into a data base to say you own and are likely to carry a handgun. Enforcement is the hardest part most likely, and you don't need to be registered for CCW to actually purchase a pistol, which is the problem i think. In general, I think getting people on the books as owning concealed weapons is a good first step and a nice compromise between the current system and registering individual guns which many people are very against.
CCW laws are super cool but kinda shitty in the same way a lot of drug laws are because they put a really awkward gray area between what is considered concealed and open and leaves it up to interpretation by officers. You can open carry in my state, meaning just owning and carrying a gun is fine, but everyone needs to be able to tell at a glance. I think that leaves too much leeway for what really gets classified as open or concealed carry.
None of this directly solves the issues with gun control, but I think requiring the majority of gun owners to be registered for a CCW or something before making a purchase regardless of where the purchase is would make acquiring guns a big but tolerable pain in the ass. You'd still see crimes of passion with gun owners, but you'd see it be a lot harder to get access to firearms if you weren't vetted at least a little bit. Most guys I know are registered for CCW anyway but they'd probably hate it idk
I said it in the Paris Attack thread and I'll say it here: small attacks like this represent the greatest threat from terrorism in today's world and they scare me to no end. There is nothing special about that club in Orlando that differentiates it from any other gay club in the country, it could have happened to any one of our cities and I think that, in the next couple years, it will.
And come the fuck on people. Obviously not all Muslims are one incident of gay PDA away from going on a rampage. Obviously. There are millions (billions?) of Muslims that live their lives peacefully, believe in secular governance and equal rights.
But since when in the fuck did being a good liberal person in the first world necessitate abandoning all of the liberalism that got us to a relativistic utopic lifestyle in the first place? Of course Islam had something to do with this, or more specifically certain interpretations of Islam. Its the same thing for Christianity. Not all Christians can only eat fish on Fridays, but certain interpretations do follow that rule (Catholicism).
Is it access to guns? Sure, a little. But availability of means of mass murder doesn't enable the will to commit the crime. Instant crimes of passion, a murder/suicide of a wife or whole family? Sure that could be done in the space of time that blind pure emotion takes over and would be prevented by lack of gun access. If all this guy could get was a knife, he probably wouldn't have killed 50 people. But that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have attacked. Its all well and good to favor gun reform, but the aftermath of Boston wasn't about limiting access to pressure cookers. I know that it is easier to commit crime with a gun than a pressure cooker and, in general, I am very pro gun reform in very specific ways, but the issue at hand here is not how he chose to commit the crime.
50 people and an extended shootout? This person was in full control of his actions and emotions during this event (to the extent that anyone is). Was he mentally ill? Now we are necessarily speculating. I would argue that anyone willing and capable of killing 50 people is not mentally right, but is the cause of those thoughts literal mental illness, diagnosable and treatable if only caught in time? Honestly we will never really know now. But even if he were, the mentally ill are more likely to have violence committed against them than to commit acts of violence, and most of those that are truly dangerous lack the mental wherewithal to plan, execute, and continue executing for an extended length of time, this sort of organized mass crime.
So what does that leave us with? I argue that it is a mixture of a dangerous radicalized ideology combined with a mind that is both susceptible and groomed in the right ways (intentionally or otherwise) that cause acts of terror like this to be carried out. In this case, the dangerous radicalized ideology was a radicalized Islamist one, but that isn't necessarily always true. But it would be the height of ignorance and willful stupidity so as not to be called out for your "intolerance" that would lead someone to say Islam had nothing to do with this. Radical Islam absolutely teaches that gays must be killed and other, extremely intolerable things to a modern society like the implementation of Sharia Law and the subjugation of women. This is Intolerance, and tolerating intolerance is not, in fact, tolerance. It is merely the passive-aggressive enabling of intolerance.
When searching for an answer to these sorts of events, why do we never take these "people" at their words? He SAID that this is an act of terrorism in the service of his religion, he said that this is an act of intolerance and that gays must die. Why are we so loathe to believe him? I know why. Because it challenges the insipid whimper of the regressive left who bemoan our intolerance of dangerous radicalized ideology in all its forms. We want to be good little tolerant people in the face of the greatest existential threat ever faced by western liberalism.
idk man, why can't we just all love each other.
My thoughts are with those in Orlando who died and who lost family, friends, loved ones and colleagues. Orlando just got a little less colorful.
I said it in the Paris Attack thread and I'll say it here: small attacks like this represent the greatest threat from terrorism in today's world and they scare me to no end. There is nothing special about that club in Orlando that differentiates it from any other gay club in the country, it could have happened to any one of our cities and I think that, in the next couple years, it will.
And come the fuck on people. Obviously not all Muslims are one incident of gay PDA away from going on a rampage. Obviously. There are millions (billions?) of Muslims that live their lives peacefully, believe in secular governance and equal rights.
But since when in the fuck did being a good liberal person in the first world necessitate abandoning all of the liberalism that got us to a relativistic utopic lifestyle in the first place? Of course Islam had something to do with this, or more specifically certain interpretations of Islam. Its the same thing for Christianity. Not all Christians can only eat fish on Fridays, but certain interpretations do follow that rule (Catholicism).
Is it access to guns? Sure, a little. But availability of means of mass murder doesn't enable the will to commit the crime. Instant crimes of passion, a murder/suicide of a wife or whole family? Sure that could be done in the space of time that blind pure emotion takes over and would be prevented by lack of gun access. If all this guy could get was a knife, he probably wouldn't have killed 50 people. But that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have attacked. Its all well and good to favor gun reform, but the aftermath of Boston wasn't about limiting access to pressure cookers. I know that it is easier to commit crime with a gun than a pressure cooker and, in general, I am very pro gun reform in very specific ways, but the issue at hand here is not how he chose to commit the crime.
50 people and an extended shootout? This person was in full control of his actions and emotions during this event (to the extent that anyone is). Was he mentally ill? Now we are necessarily speculating. I would argue that anyone willing and capable of killing 50 people is not mentally right, but is the cause of those thoughts literal mental illness, diagnosable and treatable if only caught in time? Honestly we will never really know now. But even if he were, the mentally ill are more likely to have violence committed against them than to commit acts of violence, and most of those that are truly dangerous lack the mental wherewithal to plan, execute, and continue executing for an extended length of time, this sort of organized mass crime.
So what does that leave us with? I argue that it is a mixture of a dangerous radicalized ideology combined with a mind that is both susceptible and groomed in the right ways (intentionally or otherwise) that cause acts of terror like this to be carried out. In this case, the dangerous radicalized ideology was a radicalized Islamist one, but that isn't necessarily always true. But it would be the height of ignorance and willful stupidity so as not to be called out for your "intolerance" that would lead someone to say Islam had nothing to do with this. Radical Islam [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwxqqAprQ]absolutely teaches that gays must be killed[/url] and other, extremely intolerable things to a modern society like the implementation of Sharia Law and the subjugation of women. This is Intolerance, and tolerating intolerance is not, in fact, tolerance. It is merely the passive-aggressive enabling of intolerance.
When searching for an answer to these sorts of events, why do we never take these "people" at their words? He SAID that this is an act of terrorism in the service of his religion, he said that this is an act of intolerance and that gays must die. Why are we so loathe to believe him? I know why. Because it challenges the insipid whimper of the regressive left who bemoan our intolerance of dangerous radicalized ideology in all its forms. We want to be good little tolerant people in the face of the greatest existential threat ever faced by western liberalism.
idk man, why can't we just all love each other.
My thoughts are with those in Orlando who died and who lost family, friends, loved ones and colleagues. Orlando just got a little less colorful.
eeeid also like to point out that tons of people who aren't gay aren't allowed to donate blood for things that are even rarer or stupider
If you were in europe in a certain time period you're not allowed to give blood for example
that's not that stupid, prions were a problem then and exposing people to prions is pretty much an instant death sentence
[quote=eee]id also like to point out that tons of people who aren't gay aren't allowed to donate blood for things that are even rarer or stupider
If you were in europe in a certain time period you're not allowed to give blood for example[/quote]
that's not that stupid, prions were a problem then and exposing people to prions is pretty much an instant death sentence
I don't think "mental illnesses" can be taken as a lot of people seem to take them, like if they were understandable like a cold or something, exclusively physiologically determined...
How do you prove someone is mentally ill? Excluded extreme cases, I don't know of any objective exams that can be conducted to do that...
Society, human interactions, affective relations are always deeply involved... I'd say madness is often something which gradually builds up upon distorted ideas, bad feelings, etc... Which might be accompanied with some hormonal imbalance, but it's never exclusively biological, not mass murderers I think.
How can people say that ideologies and doctrines which have always flirted with hate throughout history(not that it's the only interpretation possible, but it's given a lot) MUST have nothing to do with it, and can't even be taken in consideration?
I don't think "mental illnesses" can be taken as a lot of people seem to take them, like if they were understandable like a cold or something, exclusively physiologically determined...
How do you prove someone is mentally ill? Excluded extreme cases, I don't know of any objective exams that can be conducted to do that...
Society, human interactions, affective relations are always deeply involved... I'd say madness is often something which gradually builds up upon distorted ideas, bad feelings, etc... Which might be accompanied with some hormonal imbalance, but it's never exclusively biological, not mass murderers I think.
How can people say that ideologies and doctrines which have always flirted with hate throughout history(not that it's the only interpretation possible, but it's given a lot) MUST have nothing to do with it, and can't even be taken in consideration?
vote for hillary, she will take all the guns and there will be no more gun violence
vote for hillary, she will take all the guns and there will be no more gun violence
hektikHow can people say that ideologies and doctrines which have always flirted with hate throughout history(not that it's the only interpretation possible, but it's given a lot) MUST have nothing to do with it, and can't even be taken in consideration?
I don't know and that is something that does kind of bother me. If I go on wikipedia it will tell me that in 10 middle eastern countries (that I can at least recognize and remember) it's illegal to be gay, now that's not just that gay marriage is illegal, it's literally ILLEGAL to be a homosexual. If I go deeper in that list it's punishable by very extensive prison time, floggings/lashes, and even death in about 4 of them.
There are plenty of peaceful muslims and I appreciate the efforts they bring forth to help bring some reformation to their religion, but this guy is definitely a product of his culture and it's nothing but ignorant to pretend that's not an issue.
[quote=hektik]How can people say that ideologies and doctrines which have always flirted with hate throughout history(not that it's the only interpretation possible, but it's given a lot) MUST have nothing to do with it, and can't even be taken in consideration?[/quote]
I don't know and that is something that does kind of bother me. If I go on wikipedia it will tell me that in 10 middle eastern countries (that I can at least recognize and remember) it's illegal to be gay, now that's not just that gay marriage is illegal, it's literally ILLEGAL to be a homosexual. If I go deeper in that list it's punishable by very extensive prison time, floggings/lashes, and even death in about 4 of them.
There are plenty of peaceful muslims and I appreciate the efforts they bring forth to help bring some reformation to their religion, but this guy is definitely a product of his culture and it's nothing but ignorant to pretend that's not an issue.
Guns are not to blame for these shootings. Crazy is to blame for these mass shootings. In my opinion, the only way to combat these crazy shooters is to have responsible trained gun owners around who are armed and prepared to respond in defense of their life. Agree with it or not, this is how I live my life and if a situation like this happen near me, I may or may not die but I will respond in kind.
Over and over these "mass shooters" run around in a turkey shoot, killing everyone they see because they already know the chances of one of them being armed is low. If ordinary people started dropping these shooters, I believe, a lot of copy-cat shooters will think twice about doing this stuff. Will it stop them all, No, but maybe a few.
Discussions about Gun Control and this incident are useless. He obtained both guns he had 100% legally. My major problem is that he was on the FBI watch list and apparently had "2 investigations" opened on him in the past. That ALONE should have made him unable to legally purchase guns in this country. That said, you can't stop Crazy. If he did not get the guns legally, he would find some other avenue to purchase them.
I am 1000% Pro-Gun and hate all these attacks on legit gun owners. Changes need to be made in some respects and if you want to talk about "Gun Control" go after the people who raise red flags just like this guy. If you are on a government watch list for mostly anything, every gun shop in the country should deny your purchase after a background check. PERIOD. The "gunshow loophole" should also be dealt with as well because it is completely idiotic to allow people to purchase guns in that fashion.
Guns are not to blame for these shootings. Crazy is to blame for these mass shootings. In my opinion, the only way to combat these crazy shooters is to have responsible trained gun owners around who are armed and prepared to respond in defense of their life. Agree with it or not, this is how I live my life and if a situation like this happen near me, I may or may not die but I will respond in kind.
Over and over these "mass shooters" run around in a turkey shoot, killing everyone they see because they already know the chances of one of them being armed is low. If ordinary people started dropping these shooters, I believe, a lot of copy-cat shooters will think twice about doing this stuff. Will it stop them all, No, but maybe a few.
Discussions about Gun Control and this incident are useless. He obtained both guns he had 100% legally. My major problem is that he was on the FBI watch list and apparently had "2 investigations" opened on him in the past. That ALONE should have made him unable to legally purchase guns in this country. That said, you can't stop Crazy. If he did not get the guns legally, he would find some other avenue to purchase them.
I am 1000% Pro-Gun and hate all these attacks on legit gun owners. Changes need to be made in some respects and if you want to talk about "Gun Control" go after the people who raise red flags just like this guy. If you are on a government watch list for mostly anything, every gun shop in the country should deny your purchase after a background check. PERIOD. The "gunshow loophole" should also be dealt with as well because it is completely idiotic to allow people to purchase guns in that fashion.
SpaceCadetstuff
yeah I completely agree minus the 'gunshow loophole'. it doesn't exist. if you were to purchase it any different from a regular store at a gun show, that would be against the law, and most people at gun shows wouldn't sell you the gun. And the people who would are essentially dealing illegal arms at that point.
[quote=SpaceCadet]stuff[/quote]
yeah I completely agree minus the 'gunshow loophole'. it doesn't exist. if you were to purchase it any different from a regular store at a gun show, that would be against the law, and most people at gun shows wouldn't sell you the gun. And the people who would are essentially dealing illegal arms at that point.
I must not be the only one here who thinks both sides in the gun control debate are wrong
I must not be the only one here who thinks both sides in the gun control debate are wrong
ManSkirtDude101I must not be the only one here who thinks both sides in the gun control debate are wrong
Both sides of the gun debate are wrong and here is the reason why.
Both sides, Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun, take EVERYTHING the other side says to the absolute extreme. 99% of the time it is a totally unrealistic situation and that is exactly why they cannot find common ground for the real issues.
[quote=ManSkirtDude101]I must not be the only one here who thinks both sides in the gun control debate are wrong[/quote]
Both sides of the gun debate are wrong and here is the reason why.
Both sides, Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun, take EVERYTHING the other side says to the absolute extreme. 99% of the time it is a totally unrealistic situation and that is exactly why they cannot find common ground for the real issues.
TurinGun laws don't prevent terrorism, look at Brussels and Paris.
Sure it might lower petty crime but with the state of poverty in inner cities, knives will be used instead.
Please explain to me how someone is going to walk into a crowded area and kill 50 people with a knife.
SpaceCadetGuns are not to blame for these shootings. Crazy is to blame for these mass shootings. In my opinion, the only way to combat these crazy shooters is to have responsible trained gun owners around who are armed and prepared to respond in defense of their life...
It's crowded, it's noisy, everone is screaming, maybe it's dark, there's a stampede, and you don't know what the fuck is going on. You don't know who the shooter is or where they are. You pull your gun out: what are you going to do? Shit there's a guy with a gun, better shoot him! Except that was also a concealed carry John Wayne cowboy who thought they could be a hero, and you just shot him dead. And killed the person behind him. And now someone else is shooting at you. Is this the original shooter, or do they just think that YOU'RE the shooter? Fuck knows, better shoot them.
tl:dr introducing a bunch more people with guns to a situation l ike this is unlikely to get FEWER people killed, unless they were ridiculously lucky enough to be in postiion to end it as soon as it starts.
Anyway arguing the "what ifs" about whether concealed carry citizens would help or not in these situations is pretty pointless, because all of the statistics point to one simple fact: the more gun owners out there, the more gun deaths there are.
America has a huge problem and I honestly can't believe how many otherwise reasonable people are just sticking their heads in the sand and pretending widespread gun ownership is a good idea regardless of what happens over and over and over again. Guess I'll see you in the next thread after the next mass shooting defending gun ownership while people bury their loved ones.
:(
[quote=Turin]Gun laws don't prevent terrorism, look at Brussels and Paris.
Sure it might lower petty crime but with the state of poverty in inner cities, knives will be used instead.[/quote]
Please explain to me how someone is going to walk into a crowded area and kill 50 people with a knife.
[quote=SpaceCadet]Guns are not to blame for these shootings. Crazy is to blame for these mass shootings. In my opinion, the only way to combat these crazy shooters is to have responsible trained gun owners around who are armed and prepared to respond in defense of their life...[/quote]
It's crowded, it's noisy, everone is screaming, maybe it's dark, there's a stampede, and you don't know what the fuck is going on. You don't know who the shooter is or where they are. You pull your gun out: what are you going to do? Shit there's a guy with a gun, better shoot him! Except that was also a concealed carry John Wayne cowboy who thought they could be a hero, and you just shot him dead. And killed the person behind him. And now someone else is shooting at you. Is this the original shooter, or do they just think that YOU'RE the shooter? Fuck knows, better shoot them.
tl:dr introducing a bunch more people with guns to a situation l ike this is unlikely to get FEWER people killed, unless they were ridiculously lucky enough to be in postiion to end it as soon as it starts.
Anyway arguing the "what ifs" about whether concealed carry citizens would help or not in these situations is pretty pointless, because all of the statistics point to one simple fact: the more gun owners out there, the more gun deaths there are.
America has a huge problem and I honestly can't believe how many otherwise reasonable people are just sticking their heads in the sand and pretending widespread gun ownership is a good idea regardless of what happens over and over and over again. Guess I'll see you in the next thread after the next mass shooting defending gun ownership while people bury their loved ones.
:(
BarryChucklePlease explain to me how someone is going to walk into a crowded area and kill 50 people with a knife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz8cqJJko8g
[quote=BarryChuckle]
Please explain to me how someone is going to walk into a crowded area and kill 50 people with a knife.
[/quote]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz8cqJJko8g[/youtube]
aim-BarryChucklePlease explain to me how someone is going to walk into a crowded area and kill 50 people with a knife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz8cqJJko8g
...ok fair point
[quote=aim-][quote=BarryChuckle]
Please explain to me how someone is going to walk into a crowded area and kill 50 people with a knife.
[/quote]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz8cqJJko8g[/youtube][/quote]
...ok fair point
toads_tfSpaceCadetstuff
yeah I completely agree minus the 'gunshow loophole'. it doesn't exist. if you were to purchase it any different from a regular store at a gun show, that would be against the law, and most people at gun shows wouldn't sell you the gun. And the people who would are essentially dealing illegal arms at that point.
My friend, do you really understand what the gunshow loophole is? Let me give you a scenario I have witnessed happen several times in the past that is 100% legal but shows howw you can purchase a gun without any ID or proof of purchase or record of the sale.
As people walk around inside a gunshow, some of them are carrying Rifles on their shoulders, or other types of guns, with price tags attached for all to see as they go from table to table. Selling the Rifle itself is not illegal in this fashion but once you express interest in the gun, he may ask you if you want to buy more. Then you go to his truck and he opens up his arsenal for sale. This quickly turns illegal but nobody asks any questions because guns are all over and its a fucking gunshow right?
There you have it, you just bought your first AK-47 and nobody at all knows you have it.
[quote=toads_tf][quote=SpaceCadet]stuff[/quote]
yeah I completely agree minus the 'gunshow loophole'. it doesn't exist. if you were to purchase it any different from a regular store at a gun show, that would be against the law, and most people at gun shows wouldn't sell you the gun. And the people who would are essentially dealing illegal arms at that point.[/quote]
My friend, do you really understand what the gunshow loophole is? Let me give you a scenario I have witnessed happen several times in the past that is 100% legal but shows howw you can purchase a gun without any ID or proof of purchase or record of the sale.
As people walk around inside a gunshow, some of them are carrying Rifles on their shoulders, or other types of guns, with price tags attached for all to see as they go from table to table. Selling the Rifle itself is not illegal in this fashion but once you express interest in the gun, he may ask you if you want to buy more. Then you go to his truck and he opens up his arsenal for sale. This quickly turns illegal but nobody asks any questions because guns are all over and its a fucking gunshow right?
There you have it, you just bought your first AK-47 and nobody at all knows you have it.
There are countries with a lot of guns per capita that don't have as much problems with mass shootings though, like Switzerland...
USA is a big country, inside which some widely different cultures might exist, there's some pretty big inequality in some places, there are a lot of factors to consider I don't think it can be easily reduced to "there are too much guns"
There are countries with a lot of guns per capita that don't have as much problems with mass shootings though, like Switzerland...
USA is a big country, inside which some widely different cultures might exist, there's some pretty big inequality in some places, there are a lot of factors to consider I don't think it can be easily reduced to "there are too much guns"
89zombiezcrw89zombiezcrwSo you are saying this isn't islam?
Well we'll see, I don't know any other group that wears bombvests and shoots gays.
Literally any other mentally unstable person could have done it, not all terrorism is done by islamic people. Cmon dude get a grip.
Most of such terrorism has to do with islam. It's the most likely possibility.
Most doesn't mean all. Theres plenty of unstable people in the US alone who could have done such a thing. Religion doesnt always have to be a factor in stuff like this.
http://imgur.com/HhlWYzs
[quote=89zombiez][quote=crw][quote=89zombiez][quote=crw]So you are saying this isn't islam?
Well we'll see, I don't know any other group that wears bombvests and shoots gays.[/quote]
Literally any other mentally unstable person could have done it, not all terrorism is done by islamic people. Cmon dude get a grip.[/quote]
Most of such terrorism has to do with islam. It's the most likely possibility.[/quote]
Most doesn't mean all. Theres plenty of unstable people in the US alone who could have done such a thing. Religion doesnt always have to be a factor in stuff like this.[/quote]
http://imgur.com/HhlWYzs
SpaceCadetstuff
I might be wrong, but i'm pretty sure even for legal guns, you don't have to report or do anything if you are selling/trading a gun between two people and not selling a gun as a business.
ManSkirtDude101I must not be the only one here who thinks both sides in the gun control debate are wrong
agreed
[quote=SpaceCadet]stuff[/quote]
I might be wrong, but i'm pretty sure even for legal guns, you don't have to report or do anything if you are selling/trading a gun between two people and not selling a gun as a business.
[quote=ManSkirtDude101]I must not be the only one here who thinks both sides in the gun control debate are wrong[/quote]
agreed
SpaceCadetAs people walk around inside a gunshow, some of them are carrying Rifles on their shoulders, or other types of guns, with price tags attached for all to see as they go from table to table. Selling the Rifle itself is not illegal in this fashion but once you express interest in the gun, he may ask you if you want to buy more. Then you go to his truck and he opens up his arsenal for sale. This quickly turns illegal but nobody asks any questions because guns are all over and its a fucking gunshow right?
There you have it, you just bought your first AK-47 and nobody at all knows you have it.
Holy dooley that's ridiculous. What I don't understand is: almost everyone I've talked with, even people like you who are pro-gun ownership, seem to agree that it needs to be HEAVILY controlled with background checks and getting rid of dumb loopholes like this. So the question is: why aren't these regulations enforced? Why is it almost effortless to buy an automatic weapon in some states? If both sides agree somethign needs to be done, why isn't it being done :/
[quote=SpaceCadet]
As people walk around inside a gunshow, some of them are carrying Rifles on their shoulders, or other types of guns, with price tags attached for all to see as they go from table to table. Selling the Rifle itself is not illegal in this fashion but once you express interest in the gun, he may ask you if you want to buy more. Then you go to his truck and he opens up his arsenal for sale. This quickly turns illegal but nobody asks any questions because guns are all over and its a fucking gunshow right?
There you have it, you just bought your first AK-47 and nobody at all knows you have it.[/quote]
Holy dooley that's ridiculous. What I don't understand is: almost everyone I've talked with, even people like you who are pro-gun ownership, seem to agree that it needs to be HEAVILY controlled with background checks and getting rid of dumb loopholes like this. So the question is: why aren't these regulations enforced? Why is it almost effortless to buy an automatic weapon in some states? If both sides agree somethign needs to be done, why isn't it being done :/
SpaceCadettoads_tfSpaceCadetstuff
yeah I completely agree minus the 'gunshow loophole'. it doesn't exist. if you were to purchase it any different from a regular store at a gun show, that would be against the law, and most people at gun shows wouldn't sell you the gun. And the people who would are essentially dealing illegal arms at that point.
My friend, do you really understand what the gunshow loophole is? Let me give you a scenario I have witnessed happen several times in the past that is 100% legal but shows howw you can purchase a gun without any ID or proof of purchase or record of the sale.
As people walk around inside a gunshow, some of them are carrying Rifles on their shoulders, or other types of guns, with price tags attached for all to see as they go from table to table. Selling the Rifle itself is not illegal in this fashion but once you express interest in the gun, he may ask you if you want to buy more. Then you go to his truck and he opens up his arsenal for sale. This quickly turns illegal but nobody asks any questions because guns are all over and its a fucking gunshow right?
There you have it, you just bought your first AK-47 and nobody at all knows you have it.
Yeah, okay, not going to argue that that doesn't happen-- of course I'm sure it does. You said that people were 'allowed' to purchase guns like that, but they aren't. (if the seller is licensed)
SpaceCadetit is completely idiotic to allow people to purchase guns in that fashion.
There's really nothing you can do about that; it's essentially the same as buying an unlicensed gun from anywhere else, and has nothing to do with gun shows. It's also illegal for one party to be underage, or from a different state than the other. In some states, it's not even legal to do a private face-to-face sale as well.
[quote=SpaceCadet][quote=toads_tf][quote=SpaceCadet]stuff[/quote]
yeah I completely agree minus the 'gunshow loophole'. it doesn't exist. if you were to purchase it any different from a regular store at a gun show, that would be against the law, and most people at gun shows wouldn't sell you the gun. And the people who would are essentially dealing illegal arms at that point.[/quote]
My friend, do you really understand what the gunshow loophole is? Let me give you a scenario I have witnessed happen several times in the past that is 100% legal but shows howw you can purchase a gun without any ID or proof of purchase or record of the sale.
As people walk around inside a gunshow, some of them are carrying Rifles on their shoulders, or other types of guns, with price tags attached for all to see as they go from table to table. Selling the Rifle itself is not illegal in this fashion but once you express interest in the gun, he may ask you if you want to buy more. Then you go to his truck and he opens up his arsenal for sale. This quickly turns illegal but nobody asks any questions because guns are all over and its a fucking gunshow right?
There you have it, you just bought your first AK-47 and nobody at all knows you have it.[/quote]
Yeah, okay, not going to argue that that doesn't happen-- of course I'm sure it does. You said that people were 'allowed' to purchase guns like that, but they aren't. (if the seller is licensed)
[quote=SpaceCadet]it is completely idiotic to allow people to purchase guns in that fashion.[/quote]
There's really nothing you can do about that; it's essentially the same as buying an unlicensed gun from anywhere else, and has nothing to do with gun shows. It's also illegal for one party to be underage, or from a different state than the other. In some states, it's not even legal to do a private face-to-face sale as well.
BarryChuckleSpaceCadetAs people walk around inside a gunshow, some of them are carrying Rifles on their shoulders, or other types of guns, with price tags attached for all to see as they go from table to table. Selling the Rifle itself is not illegal in this fashion but once you express interest in the gun, he may ask you if you want to buy more. Then you go to his truck and he opens up his arsenal for sale. This quickly turns illegal but nobody asks any questions because guns are all over and its a fucking gunshow right?
There you have it, you just bought your first AK-47 and nobody at all knows you have it.
Holy dooley that's ridiculous. What I don't understand is: almost everyone I've talked with, even people like you who are pro-gun ownership, seem to agree that it needs to be HEAVILY controlled with background checks and getting rid of dumb loopholes like this. So the question is: why aren't these regulations enforced? Why is it almost effortless to buy an automatic weapon in some states? If both sides agree somethign needs to be done, why isn't it being done :/
First, you can't buy an automatic weapon legally at all. They are 100% illegal and I wish the news would stop referring to these guns as Automatic Assault Rifles.
Second part as to why the laws can't do anything about it in a nutshell is because the Anti-Gun and Pro-Gun people do not want to concede any ground on the issue to each other and find common ground. Pro-Gun is scared that any "new anti-gun law" will only be the beginning of an avalanche of further laws that hurt them. Anti-Gun people want to regulate most things that will only hurt responsible gun owners and not have any real impact on illegal sales thus punishing the wrong people in this argument.
[quote=BarryChuckle][quote=SpaceCadet]
As people walk around inside a gunshow, some of them are carrying Rifles on their shoulders, or other types of guns, with price tags attached for all to see as they go from table to table. Selling the Rifle itself is not illegal in this fashion but once you express interest in the gun, he may ask you if you want to buy more. Then you go to his truck and he opens up his arsenal for sale. This quickly turns illegal but nobody asks any questions because guns are all over and its a fucking gunshow right?
There you have it, you just bought your first AK-47 and nobody at all knows you have it.[/quote]
Holy dooley that's ridiculous. What I don't understand is: almost everyone I've talked with, even people like you who are pro-gun ownership, seem to agree that it needs to be HEAVILY controlled with background checks and getting rid of dumb loopholes like this. So the question is: why aren't these regulations enforced? Why is it almost effortless to buy an automatic weapon in some states? If both sides agree somethign needs to be done, why isn't it being done :/[/quote]
First, you can't buy an automatic weapon legally at all. They are 100% illegal and I wish the news would stop referring to these guns as Automatic Assault Rifles.
Second part as to why the laws can't do anything about it in a nutshell is because the Anti-Gun and Pro-Gun people do not want to concede any ground on the issue to each other and find common ground. Pro-Gun is scared that any "new anti-gun law" will only be the beginning of an avalanche of further laws that hurt them. Anti-Gun people want to regulate most things that will only hurt responsible gun owners and not have any real impact on illegal sales thus punishing the wrong people in this argument.
I believe you actually can get an automatic gun with very extensive permits and background checks, but even then its not really going to be that much more effective for mass shootings in the long run.
I believe you actually can get an automatic gun with very extensive permits and background checks, but even then its not really going to be that much more effective for mass shootings in the long run.
As a side note, this is from two days ago.
wnd.com/2016/06/isis-warns-ramadan-will-be-time-of-terror/
Hopefully this is the last of these events, but regardless, stay safe out there friends
As a side note, this is from two days ago.
wnd.com/2016/06/isis-warns-ramadan-will-be-time-of-terror/
Hopefully this is the last of these events, but regardless, stay safe out there friends
I don't think there is any point in discussing if the Islam is a religion of peace at it's core values, I think it's more important to look at how the radical cultures based around it behave, and that is to our social standards fucking absurd and inhumane. It's also NOT a ''tiny part of the muslim population'' like many people say/claim.
This video explains it fairly well, of course this still a very shallow look at the problem but most people here are not going to watch 40 minute videos on the topic.
I don't think there is any point in discussing if the Islam is a religion of peace at it's core values, I think it's more important to look at how the radical cultures based around it behave, and that is to our social standards fucking absurd and inhumane. It's also NOT a ''tiny part of the muslim population'' like many people say/claim.
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg]This video[/url] explains it fairly well, of course this still a very shallow look at the problem but most people here are not going to watch 40 minute videos on the topic.
hate to be that guy but if this was a white person who did this they would have got away with it claiming that they are in a mentally insecure state but since this individual has ties with islam he will automatically be depicted as a terrorist.
hate to be that guy but if this was a white person who did this they would have got away with it claiming that they are in a mentally insecure state but since this individual has ties with islam he will automatically be depicted as a terrorist.
evglehate to be that guy but if this was a white person who did this they would have got away with it claiming that they are in a mentally insecure state but since this individual has ties with islam he will automatically be depicted as a terrorist.
You do know what terrorism means right...? So you're definitely being 'that guy' right now, just not the one you're thinking of.
Show Content
[quote=evgle]hate to be that guy but if this was a white person who did this they would have got away with it claiming that they are in a mentally insecure state but since this individual has ties with islam he will automatically be depicted as a terrorist.[/quote]
You do know what terrorism means right...? So you're definitely being 'that guy' right now, just not the one you're thinking of.
[spoiler]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Qcw6tNG.png?1[/img][/spoiler]
evglehate to be that guy but if this was a white person who did this they would have got away with it claiming that they are in a mentally insecure state but since this individual has ties with islam he will automatically be depicted as a terrorist.
No, he'll be depicted as a terrorist because he quite literally claimed to be an ISIS affiliate. Not because of his religious ties.
[quote=evgle]hate to be that guy but if this was a white person who did this they would have got away with it claiming that they are in a mentally insecure state but since this individual has ties with islam he will automatically be depicted as a terrorist.[/quote]
No, he'll be depicted as a terrorist because he quite literally claimed to be an ISIS affiliate. Not because of his religious ties.