Irrational Fear Of Terrorists? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2016, 09:41 AM
|
|
|
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2016, 05:47 PM
|
|
QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 16 2016, 04:39 PM)    I heard it was easy to get a gun in USA but no background checks!? thats simply wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2016, 05:53 PM
|
|
I can appreciate how you feel, but the same argument you are making could be leveled right back. It could easily be said that perhaps you don't know enough to suggest that most are violent. As Kris asked, "what are your sources" youtube videos made by folks that share a given worldview don't really hold muster as an objective "source" sadly
 So then, I'll try to share some stats. Here is a pew poll used by BOTH SIDES to justify various arguments. In historically Muslim countries, there is a disturbing comfort level with violence and Sharia, in many cases. However, there are many historically muslim countries who do not poll this way. Let's talk about American muslims first as this is our country  Support for violence among Muslims Worldwide From the pew poll http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worl...full-report.pdf Few U.S. Muslims voice support for suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam; 81% say such acts are never justified, while fewer than one-in-ten say violence against civilians either is often justified (1%) or is sometimes justified (7%) to defend Islam. Around the world, most Muslims also reject suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians. However, substantial minorities in several countries say such acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories Not shocking to find out the Palestinian muslims are more violent. They are often invaded and killed by their neighbor. And there are substantial minorities of violent muslims in many of the countries as listed. However, it's important to note that in every case listed, these are MINORITY VIEWS. In the United States, where we do a better job integrating people than some countries, the numbers drop to 1%. I've looked in to this in depth. I'm not speaking off the cuff here. I'm open to any research that anyone wants to share. Let's not call youtube vids, created by folks who are biased either for or against, to valid sources though eh? Nut job, not a member of isis Also, as far as his connection to "ISIS" and islamic terror. As I mentioned, he first gave credit to HEZBOLAH then gave credit to ISIS. Anyone who knows better will tell you that these organizations hate each other and that what this shows is that he did this for himself, only. The terror groups latched on to it of course, in order to give themselves the appearance of power. He was another lone wolf nut. He just happened to be Muslim. He may have also been Gay. His inability to resolve this, led him perhaps to this act in order to try to cleanse his soul through martrydom. He had been going and dancing/drinking at this club/using gay hookup aps on his phone for many years according to his current and ex wife. Prepping on the subject of prepping. Any reason is a good reason IMHO. And yes, I know well how our infrastructure is in need of repair. I only hope the next folks in charge will spend some money repairing it, instead of building billions (2.8 billion) in main battle tanks that the Army doesn't need, according to the Army itself.. E.g. 2000 abrahms tanks sitting in a parking lot. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/a...s-but-no-tanks/ Deaths By Religion Christianity vs Islam: Christianity 15 Million, Islam 2 Million Also, I've looked in to this topic in depth as well. I try to research any topic that I make any claims about before I make the claims. Here is a handy link detailing the bloody history of both religions. Sadly, the Christians win by SEVEN TO ONE over islam. So just like the first argument, it may be that perhaps you have not researched this to adequate depth? https://www.quora.com/Which-religion-is-res...-entire-history QUOTE (Spock @ Jun 15 2016, 06:56 PM) Hon  What's hypocritical to me is comparing violence of other religions to the violence of Islam IMHO. I AGREE!! That is why I support background checks in EVERY STATE at EVERY GUNSHOW. If you want a gun, you should have to pass a background check to show if you are legally insane, have a history of violence, are under FBI suspicion, etc. Granted, sometimes it may get in the way of someone who might deserve a gun. But on the whole, it serves to protect the public interest in safety IMHO. I submitted to a background check to get my gun. Had zero problem with it. Waited the few days required and bingo, gun owner. QUOTE (Mertay @ Jun 16 2016, 12:47 PM) I heard it was easy to get a gun in USA but no background checks!? thats simply wrong.This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 16 2016, 06:25 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2016, 06:39 PM
|
|
Intersting - I live in South Carolina and I've had a background check run on every gun I've purchased.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2016, 08:01 PM
|
|
QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 16 2016, 08:39 AM) And here ya go Quick pic detailing which states actually require background checks at gun shows In my state, Georgia, NO bacground checks required. It's the states that DO NOT require background checks that I am personally opposed to. The states that DO require them, (as in the video you shared) are doing just fine IMHO Youtube doesn't always make a great "source". You can find vids to substantiate nearly any view. Also, in many cases the folks making a given video leave off the bits that go against the argument being made, as in the vid shared. Todd Sorry Todd but you have no idea what you are talking about, Read the Brady Act, It is FEDERAL LAW. You are talking about private purchases between individuals and in some states the sales to those who already have a permit, which means they have been pre-screened and have already been though the check within the last 5 years before the purchase. If their permit is over 5 years old then they have to re-screen. https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1025 http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-background-checks/ http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-private-sales/ https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/p...dy-permit-chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Inst...nd_Check_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States If you don't believe me why don't you try it? Go to a gun show in your state that you say doesn't require a check and try to buy. It ain't gonna happen without a check. Then after they tell you they need info for a check you can just back out of the deal so you don't have to spend any money on a firearm you may not actually want. Or, if you would like to get a Colt 1911, and you can without a background check I will pay for it and buy you a holster and an extra clip for it to boot. No BS. But if you can't purchase that Colt without a check, you will need to send me your beloved old school Ibanez RG. Deal? A private sale between one individual to another does not count. Oh and one more thing concerning the no fly list being used to disqualify folks from purchasing a firearm. Here is the ACLU's position on the issue. https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/unti...eoples-freedoms This post has been edited by AK Rich: Jun 16 2016, 08:21 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2016, 08:55 PM
|
|
SPOCK: Despite that, it's not required by law in South Carolina for Gun shows.
Did you purchase at Gun shows?http://www.governing.com/gov-data/gun-show...e-laws-map.html QUOTE (Spock @ Jun 16 2016, 01:39 PM) Intersting - I live in South Carolina and I've had a background check run on every gun I've purchased. AKRICH: I hate to have to say it again, but I sorta do know First up, this is from ONE OF YOUR LINKS: --- Closing the private sale loophole – The Brady Act applies only to sales by FFLs. Accordingly, persons who purchase firearms from private sellers – estimated to be 40 percent of all gun purchasers – are not required to undergo background checks.16 Additional information about private transfers is contained in Federal Law on Private Sales. --- **Pretty big loophole eh? 40 percent of ALL GUN SALES! Onward to the Gunshow loophole. Here is a link from governing.com and the info as it relates to what is happening under the current state of laws. THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE http://www.governing.com/gov-data/gun-show...e-laws-map.html ----- Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood. Some states have opted to go further than federal law by requiring background checks at gun shows for any gun transaction, federal license or not. The majority of these such states require background checks at the point of transfer for all firearms. Alternatively, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey and North Carolina regulate purchases by prohibiting private dealers from selling to individuals who do not have licenses/permits, which they obtain following background checks. Some states' requirements are limited only to handgun purchases. Even in states that do not require background checks of private vendors, the venue hosting the event may require it as a matter of policy. In other cases, private vendors may opt to have a third-party licensed dealer run a background check even though it may not be required by law. Last Updated: January 2016 -------- CONCLUSIONS: According to your own sources, 40 percent of all gun sales go through the loophole of private sale, requiring no background check at all. Further, under current law, 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood. As a result, vendors at gun shows need only say that gun sales are not their principal method of livelihood and bam, no background check required. Such has been my experience at every gun show I"ve ever been to. ------ As for the ACLU, they are more than welcome to any thoughts they may have. I have been expressing my personal thoughts, which seem to be a bit different. Then again, I"ve never claimed allegiance to the ACLU. I still think anyone on a watch list should be banned from buying firearms until they are off the list. Seems like basic common sense. The good of the many wins out for me on this. Simple as that We have had many guns shows here in GA, and I've gotten to the point of purchase at every one I've gone to without being asked for so much as my drivers license. Maybe I just got lucky? It seems that there is just a steady flow of bad info coming from the NRA and other sources that just serves to muddy the water. The link to the bit from governing.com breaks it down in really simple terms. There is a huge loophole in gun shows, not to mention the 40 percent of all gun sales that are "personal sales" that require no background check at all. So any gun owner could sell to a terrorist/jihadist or buy guns for them, and nobody would know, nor could they do anything about it. This is simply BAD LAW imho. Todd QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jun 16 2016, 03:01 PM) Sorry Todd but you have no idea what you are talking about, Read the Brady Act, It is FEDERAL LAW. Y.Here is the ACLU's position on the issue. https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/unti...eoples-freedoms Well said Indeed, Palestine is a nation under occupation by any definition and the poverty they experience is part of what pushes many of them to vote for Hezbolah (a Terrorist group) or join a radical mosque. They simply lack other valid options. This is what I was talking about in terms of understanding the root cause in order to fix the problem. Poverty, prejudice, overt discrimination, occupation of ones homeland, the "collateral damage" of war, etc. These things are the seed of radicalism. IMHO the only way to address these things is at the source. Not at the results stage. QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 16 2016, 02:51 PM) More violence from Palastine? GDP per capita in Palestine averaged 1309.66 USD from 1994 until 2013, reaching an all time high of 1653 USD in 2012 and a record low of 879.52 USD in 2002. You try living on an income like that. Surprise surprise that some young men pick up guns rather than resigning themselves to the life of living in a slum in abject poverty. How about Afganistan? Taken as a whole, life expectancy for Afghans is still just 48 years, and the average annual national income per capita is about $410. You thought living on about $1,500 a year was tough, try it on $410 a year. Let's look at the Sudan. $960 a year average income, compared to Aganistan, they live in style. How about Syria? $1,200 a year, now that is big money, what are those people raising hell for? If they can't get by on almost $4 a day to pay their living expenses, well what can you say?
Radical religion just becomes an umbrella that these desperate people unify themselves under, it is symbolic, but it is not the primary cause of conflicts. Actually in my experience, as religions go, the one where I have observed the most intolerance is certainly among those calling themselves Christian. This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 16 2016, 09:08 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2016, 09:22 PM
|
|
QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 16 2016, 08:55 PM) We have had many guns shows here in GA, and I've gotten to the point of purchase at every one I've gone to without being asked for so much as my drivers license. Maybe I just got lucky? Todd Than that dealer violated federal law and can get 20 years . This is a cnn report on the checks that are required by law right now http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/bac...iner/index.html I as well have , have to go thru one of these checks every time I have to buy one in solidly red Kansas, At gun shows also. You are mislead from the graph on your post. If you read the article you took your map from , at the top it mentions that dealers having to go thru a check( database) (sounds like a background check to me) this is the check in the above link, but for some reason your article has a different opinion of what a background check is. Here is the full article if you want to see how todd cherry picked http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-j...e-laws-map.html You are forgetting as well , if someone sells a firearm registered to them and someone else uses it in a crime , it is very likely you will be prosecuted for this , so most people that do private sles don't want a gun registered to them in the wrong hands But it goes further than that , many peolpe are turned down because store owners get a bad feeling just this latest one in which the gun store owner was diligent in reporting it to the officials who did nothing https://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-shooter-turne...opstories.html# This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 16 2016, 09:25 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2016, 09:49 PM
|
|
QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 16 2016, 11:55 AM) SPOCK: Despite that, it's not required by law in South Carolina for Gun shows. Did you purchase at Gun shows?http://www.governing.com/gov-data/gun-show...e-laws-map.html AKRICH: I hate to have to say it again, but I sorta do know First up, this is from ONE OF YOUR LINKS: --- Closing the private sale loophole – The Brady Act applies only to sales by FFLs. Accordingly, persons who purchase firearms from private sellers – estimated to be 40 percent of all gun purchasers – are not required to undergo background checks.16 Additional information about private transfers is contained in Federal Law on Private Sales. --- **Pretty big loophole eh? 40 percent of ALL GUN SALES! Onward to the Gunshow loophole. Here is a link from governing.com and the info as it relates to what is happening under the current state of laws. THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE http://www.governing.com/gov-data/gun-show...e-laws-map.html ----- Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood. Some states have opted to go further than federal law by requiring background checks at gun shows for any gun transaction, federal license or not. The majority of these such states require background checks at the point of transfer for all firearms. Alternatively, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey and North Carolina regulate purchases by prohibiting private dealers from selling to individuals who do not have licenses/permits, which they obtain following background checks. Some states' requirements are limited only to handgun purchases. Even in states that do not require background checks of private vendors, the venue hosting the event may require it as a matter of policy. In other cases, private vendors may opt to have a third-party licensed dealer run a background check even though it may not be required by law. Last Updated: January 2016 -------- CONCLUSIONS: According to your own sources, 40 percent of all gun sales go through the loophole of private sale, requiring no background check at all. Further, under current law, 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood. As a result, vendors at gun shows need only say that gun sales are not their principal method of livelihood and bam, no background check required. Such has been my experience at every gun show I"ve ever been to. ------ As for the ACLU, they are more than welcome to any thoughts they may have. I have been expressing my personal thoughts, which seem to be a bit different. Then again, I"ve never claimed allegiance to the ACLU. I still think anyone on a watch list should be banned from buying firearms until they are off the list. Seems like basic common sense. The good of the many wins out for me on this. Simple as that We have had many guns shows here in GA, and I've gotten to the point of purchase at every one I've gone to without being asked for so much as my drivers license. Maybe I just got lucky? It seems that there is just a steady flow of bad info coming from the NRA and other sources that just serves to muddy the water. The link to the bit from governing.com breaks it down in really simple terms. There is a huge loophole in gun shows, not to mention the 40 percent of all gun sales that are "personal sales" that require no background check at all. So any gun owner could sell to a terrorist/jihadist or buy guns for them, and nobody would know, nor could they do anything about it. This is simply BAD LAW imho. Todd LOL The only reason I used that particular site as a reference is so you couldn't say it wasn't a legit source since it is from a pro gun control group and was only posted to show what the law is and not what this groups OPINION was on the laws or their version of stats. That 40% figure is complete rubbish. Other studies show the number of private sales to be .07 %. And a private sale loophole is different from a gun show loophole which is what I have been saying, and there really aren't many private sellers at gun shows and the ones that are there are watched by law enforcement that frequently sends undercover agents to these shows to root out folks who may be trying to skirt the law. To claim that a background check is not required in your state or any other state is complete bullshit and I invite you to put your Ibanez where your mouth is and see for yourself. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acqu...kground-checks/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2016, 11:34 PM
|
|
SPOCK: The point I was making was about the gun show loophole. Not about buying guns from stores. If you buy a gun from a store, yes, you will have to go through the process
I bought from a gun store as well and went through the same process. Did you read my actual post? It's hard for me to be a "fan" of the crusades as they did kill every man/woman/child when they entered jerusalem and it's said "blood ran to the knee". This sort of slaughter is simply unchristian no matter what it's purpose. Christ was not about violence. So killing women and chlldren in his hame would not be something he would suggest or approve of IMHO. The sermon on the mount pretty much covers his personal ideology. He was a pacifist. This irks many. He was also socialist. All early christians kept all money in "common" until it was Romanized and corrupted and became the catholic church. Having read the scriptures, I still wonder how it ever got that bad. Much like the man from Nazareth, I oppose the slaughter of women and children, no matter what the purpose. What's worse, the Muslims took the city back so it was pointless. But I digress Christians still out kill Muslims 7 TO 1. in historical terms I know you were talking about recent attacks. That's why I wanted to put some historical perspective on things. If we are staying current, we would have to keep aware of the "collateral damage" in IRAQ, and Afghanistan caused by our military. It's this collateral damage that serves as propaganda for recruiting radicals. We saw some of it, remember? The apache chopper mowing down civilians and journalists that went viral? Just a small tip of the iceberg. So even if we keep it to modern times. We have invaded Muslim countries, (Like Iraq) for no reason, killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, for no apparent reason and called it "collateral damage" and we wonder why radicalism is on the rise. Here is an article about this very thing from BROWN UNIVERSITY (Ivy League school for reference) showing over 200,000 CIVILIANS KILLED as a result of our "wars" in the region. http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians So even if we keep it to recent history, we are winning the KILL COUNT by leaps and bounds. It's just the simple truth. We have created our own monster. We never should have invaded these places at all. 15 of the 19 hijackers of 911 were from SAUDI ARABIA and yet we have no war with them. Instead, we have destabilized an entire region and allowed the expansion of forces like ISIS (many of whom are ex Iraqi army). If we want to be honest, we have done this to ourselves. QUOTE (Spock @ Jun 16 2016, 05:17 PM) No, I purchased all mine from gun stores.
Interesting links concerning Christian versus Islamic killing. I must say though that I am a big fan of the Crusades, and they were tying to give safe passage to Jerusalem and take the city back. However, did you read the comments below the guys assessment? Tends to level the playing field quite a bit. Also - I should have made myself clearer, I'm talking about more recent attacks - say, since the invention of the radio. Don't get me wrong, I'm still pissed that Persia Invaded Greece - filthy buggers. And I realize the Catholics and Protestants went at each other like Pit Bulls. But you have to admit that there has been a major reformation in the church since the Protestant reformation. In 2016 alone - THIS YEAR!!!! There have been 1067 Islamic attacks in 47 countries, in which 10022 people were killed and 12050 injured. Not including Orlando - the list can be updated. The list for the past 5 years is staggering. And the worse part about it is that this is not against another warring faction but against regular citizens. You must see the difference. Wars of hundreds or thousands of years ago don't compare to today's civilization. This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 16 2016, 11:36 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 17 2016, 01:05 AM
|
|
QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 16 2016, 11:34 PM) s Christians still out kill Muslims 7 TO 1. in historical terms here was alittle friendly debate that found otherwise http://www.debate.org/debates/History-sugg...f-their-god./2/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 17 2016, 01:30 AM
|
|
QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 16 2016, 08:05 PM) here was alittle friendly debate that found otherwise http://www.debate.org/debates/History-sugg...f-their-god./2/ I saw that as well and decided not to post it - good read though. Todd - I understand the U.S. led invasion of the middle east is terrible - we shouldn't be there. But that can not be classified as a "Christian" war. As fars as the crusades, here's some history for you... This post has been edited by Spock: Jun 17 2016, 01:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 17 2016, 01:37 AM
|
|
QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Jun 14 2016, 08:08 PM) - then we must start understing who these people are and why they became what they are today. Know your enemies for real! Therein lies the long term solution. And I am primarily interested in the long term solution, because I have two small kids and I want them to grow up in a better world. The only way to know your enemy is be truthful of their beliefs as it refers to what their holy book says and it seems to many people turn a blind eye so no one will call them a bigot . They are raised from birth ,taught that those that don't believe are infidels , second class citizens , even dogs to many of them . This is why they spit at female hospitall staffers in Europe that are trying to help them http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/1...he_kingdom.html .If you are raised like that , what will happen when you are approached by some one you have been taught look down upon. You will look down upon them . It has happened to me and I want you to pay attention to how they will treat you should you have an encounter ( not the ones you grew up with , times change, the ones now entering your coutry) , They look at you and talk to you as if they would rather not have to put up with you. Now there are many friendly Muslims to be sure , but as many as fifty percent of the ones I meet , treat me this way |
|
|
|
|
 
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
