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.
I'm no expert on immigration, so I won't pretend to know how the best way to go about this is. I don't think we should be putting them is what is basically a prison, if that's what you're asking. They should be in relatively good conditions, and if this means some sort of public housing, so be it.
My primary point was more about how talking about potential threats from certain countries in a current state of stability is completely reasonable, but talking about 'their skin is this' or 'they worship that' is not.
Look at post number 2.
And I'm an independent who left the republicans when McCain was nominated.
It might be reasonable to do the exact thing we did with the Hmong boat people after Vietnam. I'm only vaguely familiar with how we handled that.
For all the hand wringing, and I looked it up last week, we've only accepted like 1800 out of obamas proposed 10000.
I use the phrase "banning all guns" for balance in this examination, obviously real gun control would not ban all guns.
So let's proceed.
Some say the key to stopping mass killings is to ban all Muslims entry to the country.
Others say the key to stopping mass killings is to ban guns.
Let's quickly look at the roles each of these two variables play in mass killings.
All mass killings require both a combination of a perpetrator and a weapon to be carried out.
Perpetrator = In some mass killings in the United States, the perpetrator(s) has been Muslim, but not all mass killings. Some mass killings have had non-Muslim perpetrators.
Weapon = In virtually all mass killings in the United States the weapon used has been a firearm. Some contend other weapons can be used, and to a limited extent, things like hatchets and knives make up a small percentage of mass killing weapons. But they tend not to be as efficient as firearms and therefore are usually serve as a second choice. An example of an attempt at a mass killing using a knife outside of the United States involves a knife-wielding perpetrator in China who stabbed 20 school children of which all survived.
So based on the above, if we look for the most common denominator to decide which one we want to ban to control mass killings, the most obvious answer is guns. It's guns and not Muslims because guns are the most common denominator involved in mass killings, not Muslims. It's not Muslims because we know that in some cases the perpetrator is non-Muslim. But the weapon is seldom non-gun.
The most common denominator in mass killings is guns because we know in most cases of mass killings a gun is used as a weapon but a Muslim is not always the perpetrator.
So wouldn't you want to ban the most common denominator in mass killings?
Now some will object to banning guns by saying criminals intent on killing lots of people won't care about guns laws and get guns anyway.
However, if guns were made illegal for civilians (specifically assault weapons) potential mass killers would first have to commit a crime to obtain a gun to use in a mass killing. It follows that if guns were illegal a potential perpetrator of a mass killing could be caught in the act of trying to obtain an illegal firearm before a mass killing and thus be thwarted in performing that future mass killing.
But with guns legal, a potential mass killer criminal can obtain a gun legally without committing a crime to obtain that firearm and proceed to perpetrate a mass killing.
At least with guns illegal criminals would have perform that extra criminal act of obtaining an illegal firearm before they commit a mass killing. Criminals would have to risk getting caught first in obtaining an illegal firearm before a mass killing could occur. And that one crime, if detected, could be enough to deter a mass killing.
What firearm was used on 9/11? What firearm was used at the Boston Marathon terrorist attack? What firearm was used in the Oklahoma City mass killings? What firearm was used in the Atlanta Olympics mass killing?
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,730,207 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by golimar
Firstly banning Muslims or more precisely keeping adherents of Islam within a certain population percentage argument is not just related to mass shootings, it's a much bigger topic.
Islam is anti-Women, LGBT and Minoritites.
Freedom ends, where Islam begins.
Can someone explain to me how a devout muslin that adheres to sharia law can assimilate into a western country that lives by laws that are so different from barbaric Sharia? seems impossible to me..
Can someone explain to me how a devout muslin that adheres to sharia law can assimilate into a western country that lives by laws that are so different from barbaric Sharia? seems impossible to me..
Accept sharia isn't practiced outside your home... And if any of the fringe aspects like honor killing (Phoenix about -0 years ago when dad killed his 2 daughters for being to western) you'll be prosecuted inder our law.
Anyone advocating 'banning all Muslims' is infringing on the constitution.
it isnt about banning all muslims, you are right that would be an infringement of the constitution. HOWEVER you CAN ban immigrants from certain countries and certain areas of the world, and you CAN ban people of a certain faith from entering the country, since until they actually get into the country and past customs, they are not covered by the constitution, and thus there is NO infringement of the constitution.
it isnt about banning all muslims, you are right that would be an infringement of the constitution. HOWEVER you CAN ban immigrants from certain countries and certain areas of the world, and you CAN ban people of a certain faith from entering the country, since until they actually get into the country and past customs, they are not covered by the constitution, and thus there is NO infringement of the constitution.
I understand your perspective. Legally, however, I just don't agree. Unless in a declared war, let each countries quota be filled accordingly.
Note, declared war. Not war powers act or congressional auth.
I fought 'terrorism'. I understand exactly what I'm saying. And I'm not voting for either candidate.
At an average, there are 87 people killed daily in gun violence. This is about 31,000, yes, THIRTY ONE THOUSAND a year.
Most of these, IMO, are drugs and gang related.
My point is, as it stands now, it's illegal. There's a quota. But laws can be changed. Not by presidential decree however. Pres. can sign it, not mandate.
The Secretary of State is responsible for overseeing it.
Jiminy crickets. Just like the states acquiescing all their power to the Feds, now all my history is further cementing just how much power congress has ceded to the president!
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.
