None, you don’t seem to be comprehending what I am saying. I am saying not all. We have RIRA and CIRA groups that killed 3 British soldiers, they leave bombs all over NI on a weekly basis, they killed a PSNI cop this year.
You have the Lords resistance army, you have ETA etc. Most of these are nowhere near as active as they once were, but I still think it is kinda odd to ignore these groups and the tens of thousands of victims from terrorist groups from the 60’s to early 2000’s who were killing people for their specific ideologies.
Just because I hate islamism and Jihadism, I still think we should have some venom for people who are killing people for their shitty ideologies too.
I am not discounting historical atrocities (waiting for somebody to bring up the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades.).
But percentage wise, modern radical Islam is the undisputed champ of wanting to fuck shit up for everybody who does not face mecca 6x a day.
They are not gonna stop and they don’t give a shit if they go on that big elevator to the sky.
We are trying to shake hands with them and fight fair, and they are pulling a knife and stabbing our outstretched palm.
When the RIRA and CIRA …are governing their own countries and making their own laws that apply to nine figure populations, then we can have a discussion. But that is like comparing Man United to a Fifth Division semi-pro football team.
Look through my posts in this thread, I agree and called out the left and their deflection of islamic terrorism by bringing up christians etc. However on this I think it is wrong to use blanket statements like all terrorists are muslims. Google the terrorist groups active in 2015, lots of people died in terrorist attacks by non muslims. Muslims are the overwhelming majority, but I simply feel it is disrespectful to say all terrorists are muslims when people are dying from terrrorists of other ideologies.
No, it is disrespectful to the people killed by non muslim terrorists to pretend their deths didn’t happen. The PKK blew up 50 Turks, with children amongst the dead a few months ago, they are secular marxists.
Not everyone is on the regressive left, I just don’t feel comfortable with saying all terrorists are muslim when men women and children are still dying in non muslim terror attacks. It seems disrespectful to do so to those lost by their violence.
Yes the vast majority of terror attacks ARE islamic.
Lots of people are still dying from non islamic terrorism.
How is this nonsense? When did nuance become complete rubbish, someone said “all terrorists are muslims”. That simply isn’t true. Unless you count the atheist marxist PKK killing 50 people 2 months ago in car bombs as non terrorism.
Just because it is far less does not mean it is apt to pretend it does not exist. The regressive left yell because I say most terrorists are muslims, people on tnation yelling at me for saying there are still people dying from non muslim terror. Horseshoe theory?
And correlates highly with an increase in overall crime. Not only that, but gun control is a distraction. This is a terrorist attack. The goal of such is to kill as many people as possible by whatever means necessary.
And technically, and I mean very technically, if the current laws were actually followed and the correct hand-off of information occurred as it should have, his file would have been flagged. Meaning, that he was (again technically) legally able to obtain a gun. However, if his file was flagged, he would have had to go through a lot more hoops and clear his name before he could obtain a firearm. The flags on his file still allow him to buy a gun, but that is at the seller’s discretion. A flag on his file saying he was questioned multiple times by the FBI for links to terrorism though not convicted of a crime, would have prevented the eventual seller from selling that jihadist asshole any guns. No gun store owner would willingly sell a firearm to a potential terrorist.
Now, if he had to jump through hoops to get a gun, clearly he would be all over law enforcement radar. So he would either, then illegally obtain a weapon or make a bomb. Whatever the means, he was going to kill as many people as he could and he was going to kill gay people because that’s the target he was going after.
Him not legally obtaining a firearm was only going to be a speed bump in his objective. One easily subverted.
Now that being said, I do agree anybody on the no-fly list, or a person of interest in terror should be banned, explicitly, from legal firearm purchase; unless completely cleared of those charges.
Now, the fact that the gun shop did call the FBI on this guy and they did nothing says a lot. Laws and procedures don’t mean shit if they are not followed.
If a gun shop is calling you and you are the FBI, you better believe they have something important to tell you.
Certainly, there are other terror groups, there always have and will be small factions of nuts who gather together and decide violence is the way. But in the current day, these other groups like ETA, RIRA and CIRA are mere smudges on the tapestry of terror in the world, particularly the west. Compared to Islamism, these other groups barely register, hence we cannot treat all terror groups with the same focus.
If we lived in a world where the only terrorists were little groups like ETA, RIRA and CIRA, we’d be much, much, much safer. Not only our lives would be safer, our overall collective well being would be better.
We are all victims of terrorism. There are the attacked and the would-be attacked.
Ahhhh. I get it. So because criminals already don’t’ follow laws, we should put more laws in place that will obviously only punish law abiding citizens that did nothing wrong.
I see what you’re saying now… So you did know it is completely illegal to buy a pistol in a state you’re not a resident of and take possession of said pistol in said state, making both you and the FFL a felon. It’s just that you think adding more felonies (because murder isn’t a big enough one) onto the rap sheet will stop people already willing to commit murder from committing the same murder with the same illegally gotten gun, just extra super illegal now…
omg why haven’t we thought about this before?
UK =/= the rest of the gun controlled world, and no, violent crime isn’t less in the UK.
Also less murders is largely irrelevant. Here’s why:
“Hey doc, how am I doing”
“good news is we spent the last three months controlling your cough, and it’s significantly less. Bad news is, your lung cancer is hella worse why we pissed away all this time focused on the cough.”
Again Pat, the UK categorizes crime statistics differently than most of the rest of the world. You have to compare what a crime is called in the U.S. vs. England…they are very different.
Yup. We spent days discussing a UN report that made the necessary adjustments for an “apples to apples” comparison and the UK was worse in a number of areas.
Edit:
Further, we don’t really know how much of the violence that occurs in the U.S. is related to the flow of both legal and illegal immigrants over the southern border. I think per capita we’re at like 4.2/100k in homicides. Mexico is like 30/100K, if memory serves.
Yes, and this article bares that out and that information is from 2002, so I probably should not have even posted it since the data is so old.
Now while the article overall rejects the claim that the UK has “far higher” violent crime than the US, the research in the article does bare out the comparison that violent crime is, in fact, higher per capita in the UK with the exception of sexual assaults which are higher in the US by a significant margin. But the article does state that true comparison is nearly impossible because of the way each country gathers their stats. But the stats they were able to compare supports the hypothesis that the major, personally injurious crime rate is higher in the UK, without legal firearm access.