Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Colorado Movie Theater shooter - not Muslim ( did I miss any? )
Most people know I'm on the pro-gun side of this, but I can't stand disingenuous arguments, regardless of whether they are coming from the Left, or Right.
Now go straighten your Trump yard sign, I think it's a little crooked...
Here's a list of muslim committed mass shootings of late and it's understandable that Americans committed a lot because Americans are the majority of the 360mil people here.
Muslims only make up about 2% of the population and they've participated in many of them. More than any other minority groups combined.
Around the world the stats gets even more lopsided that shows muslims around the world are doing the mass shootings.
It comes to a point where some countries have declared war on radical islam after years of doing what Obama did was to not call out on "radical" Islam but eventually they had to after hundreds of people killed. When will US do something about it when 1-2 more Orlando style shootings?
Gun control did not stop French Islamic terrorists.
December 2015: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married Pakistani couple, stormed a San Bernardino County government building with combat gear and rifles and opened fire on about 80 employees enjoying an office Christmas party. They killed 14 after pledging loyalty to ISIS. A third Muslim was charged with helping buy weapons.
July 2015: Mohammad Abdulazeez opened fire on a military recruiting center and US Navy Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., where he shot to death four Marines and a sailor. Obama refused to call it terrorism.
May 2015: ISIS-directed Muslims Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson opened fire on the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, shooting a security guard before police took them down.
April 2013: Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Muslim brothers from Chechnya, exploded a pair of pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding more than 260. At least 17 people lost limbs from the shrapnel.
September 2012: Terrorists with al Qaeda in the Maghreb attacked the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the US ambassador, a US Foreign Service officer and two CIA contractors. Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton misled the American people, blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim video.
November 2009: Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13. Obama ruled it “workplace violence,” even though Hasan was in contact with an al Qaeda leader before the strikes and praised Allah as he mowed down troops.
June 2009: Al Qaeda-trained Abdulhakim Muhammad opened fire on an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark., killing Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula.
was INTENDED to define these weapons to be banned in a manner not dependent on this word "assault." As I suggested, I think the better approach as best I can understand the goal, is to define these weapons in terms of their "kill rate" capability.
The goal, to ban weapons that can kill people at a rate beyond what any civilian ought to possess for purposes of sport, hunting and/or or reasonable defense.
Have I at least got the goal right, for most of us anyway?
Those wanting to argue ANY ban on ANY weapon is not Constitutional need not reply...
Here's a list of muslim committed mass shootings of late and it's understandable that Americans committed a lot because Americans are the majority of the 360mil people here.
Muslims only make up about 2% of the population and they've participated in many of them. More than any other minority groups combined.
Around the world the stats gets even more lopsided that shows muslims around the world are doing the mass shootings.
It comes to a point where some countries have declared war on radical islam after years of doing what Obama did was to not call out on "radical" Islam but eventually they had to after hundreds of people killed. When will US do something about it when 1-2 more Orlando style shootings?
Gun control did not stop French Islamic terrorists.
December 2015: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married Pakistani couple, stormed a San Bernardino County government building with combat gear and rifles and opened fire on about 80 employees enjoying an office Christmas party. They killed 14 after pledging loyalty to ISIS. A third Muslim was charged with helping buy weapons.
July 2015: Mohammad Abdulazeez opened fire on a military recruiting center and US Navy Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., where he shot to death four Marines and a sailor. Obama refused to call it terrorism.
May 2015: ISIS-directed Muslims Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson opened fire on the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, shooting a security guard before police took them down.
April 2013: Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Muslim brothers from Chechnya, exploded a pair of pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding more than 260. At least 17 people lost limbs from the shrapnel.
September 2012: Terrorists with al Qaeda in the Maghreb attacked the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the US ambassador, a US Foreign Service officer and two CIA contractors. Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton misled the American people, blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim video.
November 2009: Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13. Obama ruled it “workplace violence,” even though Hasan was in contact with an al Qaeda leader before the strikes and praised Allah as he mowed down troops.
June 2009: Al Qaeda-trained Abdulhakim Muhammad opened fire on an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark., killing Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula.
A while back I was involved in all this about the history of terrorism and of course that history goes back a long while. Read up on terrorism by way of Wikipedia just for starters, and what becomes clear is that terrorism has been around for a very long time and all indications are that it will continue for a good while longer. Also clear, to me anyway, is that identifying the terrorists with broad-brushed labels, like an entire religion or nationality, for example, really does not apply except in cases of clear cut declarations of war.
WWI and WWII for example, even the killing of innocent civilians is "okay," but those sorts of world conflicts are what we need to avoid, in part not by declaring war on billions of people because there are terrorists who claim to represent them. Or maybe it would have been right to label all Catholics and/or Protestants as terrorists back when it was Ireland that had the world's attention due to terrorism.
was INTENDED to define these weapons to be banned in a manner not dependent on this word "assault." As I suggested, I think the better approach as best I can understand the goal, is to define these weapons in terms of their "kill rate" capability.
The goal, to ban weapons that can kill people at a rate beyond what any civilian ought to possess for purposes of sport, hunting and/or or reasonable defense.
Have I at least got the goal right, for most of us anyway?
Those wanting to argue ANY ban on ANY weapon is not Constitutional need not reply...
No, you don't have the goal right. The 2nd amendment is not about sport or hunting, and what is reasonable defense?
The 2nd amendment is all about an armed populace as a deterrent against government misbehavior. It is to allow for weapon parity between civilians and the government. At the time of the signing of the constitution, this weapon parity meant a flintlock rifle. Now, it means a select-fire assault rifle.
was INTENDED to define these weapons to be banned in a manner not dependent on this word "assault." As I suggested, I think the better approach as best I can understand the goal, is to define these weapons in terms of their "kill rate" capability.
The goal, to ban weapons that can kill people at a rate beyond what any civilian ought to possess for purposes of sport, hunting and/or or reasonable defense.
Have I at least got the goal right, for most of us anyway?
Those wanting to argue ANY ban on ANY weapon is not Constitutional need not reply...
Really can't use kill rate as a benchmark when using semi-automatic weapons, a semi automatic pistol has the same kill rate as an AR-15. The definition needs to accommodate the size of the magazine. The problem for legislating gun control in the US is that we are a country built on personal liberties, and those liberties are being threatened by the government. When you look at the problem, it's not the 99.9% of legal, law abiding gun owners, it's mentally disturbed people, terrorists, or gangs. It's a tough sell to ask law abiding citizens to give up any of their liberties when they've done nothing wrong and to restrict those liberties won't fix the problem.
The problem is we are being distracted by the easy job of regulating things instead of figuring out how to identify and control these crazy people and preventing them from committing these atrocities. Guns do not kill people without a human pulling the trigger. Crazy people do not need machine guns to kill people. Automobiles filled with explosives work just fine.
The problem is we are being distracted by the easy job of regulating things instead of figuring out how to identify and control these crazy people and preventing them from committing these atrocities. Guns do not kill people without a human pulling the trigger. Crazy people do not need machine guns to kill people. Automobiles filled with explosives work just fine.
I also think the government is deflecting their failure in the case of the Orlando massacre, the FBI totally dropped the ball on this guy, and not just once: Gun Store Owner: We Alerted FBI to 'Suspicious' Customer Weeks Before Orlando Shooting - ABC News Politicians will take the path of least resistance, and they are quickly trying to capitalize on people's fears that things are unraveling.
was INTENDED to define these weapons to be banned in a manner not dependent on this word "assault." As I suggested, I think the better approach as best I can understand the goal, is to define these weapons in terms of their "kill rate" capability.
The goal, to ban weapons that can kill people at a rate beyond what any civilian ought to possess for purposes of sport, hunting and/or or reasonable defense.
Have I at least got the goal right, for most of us anyway?
Those wanting to argue ANY ban on ANY weapon is not Constitutional need not reply...
No, you don't have that goal right.
Your whole line of thinking ("kill rate" and "reasonable self defense") is ridiculous.....and this is why.
Say we ban all magazines over 10 rounds......that means:
That your theory is a terrorist will only be able to kill 10 people....but not 15. (flawed logic, criminals don't care about laws)
Mass shooters who are intent on killing as many people as possible will always have extra magazines, as Omar Mateen did.
However, someone whose trying to defend their life, home and family can only use 10 rounds.....but not 15. (sound logic, law abiding citizens, by definition would follow the law)
But someone defending their home, half asleep in the middle of the night is probably not likely to be as well prepared with extra magazines at their bedside.
And for the millionth time.....The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. And any argument for gun control that uses the phrase "hunting" is automatically invalid.
Who are you to decide what "reasonable self defense" is for law abiding citizens? And why should law abiding citizens be limited to less effective weapons than the people who they will have to defend themselves from?
The argument that needing 30 round mags being unnecessary for home defense is a weak one...people miss, and they miss a lot under high stress situations. This is why you hear of so many police shootings where the police fire dozens or hundreds of rounds in the course of apprehending a suspect....be cause even trained shooters like the police miss a lot under real world conditions.
Essentially, you and all other gun control advocates are looking for a hardware based solution to a software based problem.
MCX uses a short stroke piston to engage the bolt to eject the chambered round and cycle to chamber a new one.
The AR-15 uses a direct impingement system which sends hot gases through a tube to directly hit the gas key on the bolt to actuate the bolt cycling.
Kind of like saying a RX-8 rotary is the same as a Miata, or asking what the functional difference between a Ferrari and a Hyundai are. Basics are the same, but you would never call a F-car a Hyundai.
This is also correct. Go back to the STG-44, M2 Carbine, M1 Garand, and further back and the BASICS of a firearm stay the same: part of the energy is directed back to be used to cycle the next round.
AR 15 holds 30 rounds. Same rate of fire. MCX holds 30 roounds, same rate of fire. For the purposes of this discussion, those are the only factors that matter... They are functionally the same gun.
Your whole line of thinking ("kill rate" and "reasonable self defense") is ridiculous.....and this is why.
Say we ban all magazines over 10 rounds......that means:
That your theory is a terrorist will only be able to kill 10 people....but not 15. (flawed logic, criminals don't care about laws)
Mass shooters who are intent on killing as many people as possible will always have extra magazines, as Omar Mateen did.
However, someone whose trying to defend their life, home and family can only use 10 rounds.....but not 15. (sound logic, law abiding citizens, by definition would follow the law)
But someone defending their home, half asleep in the middle of the night is probably not likely to be as well prepared with extra magazines at their bedside.
And for the millionth time.....The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target shooting.
And any argument for gun control that uses the phrase "hunting" is automatically invalid.
Who are you to decide what "reasonable self defense" is for law abiding citizens? And why should law abiding citizens be limited to less effective weapons than the people who they will have to defend themselves from?
The argument that needing 30 round mags being unnecessary for home defense is a weak one...people miss, and they miss a lot under high stress situations. This is why you hear of so many police shootings where the police fire dozens or hundreds of rounds in the course of apprehending a suspect....be cause even trained shooters like the police miss a lot under real world conditions.
Essentially, you and all other gun control advocates are looking for a hardware based solution to a software based problem.
All good points, but they will fall on deaf ears, because people who want gun control don't even think self-defense is a legit argument. They don't take it seriously, and so they don't take it in to consideration. They roll their eyes at the very notion. Hell, they don't even take the Second Amendment seriously, as was evidenced when Chris Murphy said numerous times during his 15 hour filibuster that he and others disagree with the Heller decision.
So they still don't even take seriously the fact that an individual right to keep and bear arms even exists. If we can't all agree to start out from that basic premise, than going any further is futile.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
