rickyp wrote:fate
So, which is the danger, the gun or the ideology?
Its pretty obvious that both the San Bernadino and the recent incident in England were perpetrated by people who were ideologically motivated. But the first were better armed... Which is the point he was trying to make. The guns make the terrorist more dangerous. The lack of guns make them both less dangerous and, as demonstrated in England, easier to resist by unarmed people.
One person with a knife is less dangerous than two people with guns. Duh.
So what?
We're not going to get rid of the Second Amendment. To do so would require a Second Civil War, which would be short-lived as it would feature those who want guns versus those who do not.
What is more pertinent: the ideology. Had our government, the same one claiming it can vet the Syrian refugees, done a modicum of research, it would have discovered the female Muslim terrorist presented a false name and a fake address. She was radical. He was radical. The evidence is leaking out--even the media trip through their home was enlightening. The only images on their walls were quotations from the Qur'an. Their home screamed "obsessed with Islam." They were in contact with a known ISIS recruiter. If our government was interested, they could have located these folks before the attack or prevented her from entering the country altogether.
However, the great fear of the Obama regime is being anti-Muslim. They would not even release her picture for days. Why?
The Attorney General is warning against language that might appear to incite violence against Muslims. Is she monitoring mosques for language that might incite violence against Americans?
I can't wait for the Feckless One to speak tonight. I wonder what he'll say . . . this attack does not represent Islam . . . Muslims are our friends and neighbors . . . this should have no impact on immigration . . . ISIS is under control . . .
/snooze
Its also pretty obvious that although ISIS peddles a dangerous perverted version of Islam that is motivating some already alienated people to commit acts of terror ..
its nothing compared to what motivates most mass shooters in the US... Who happen to be young white men. Christians too.
But research shows that mass shootings are primarily committed by white males—the most privileged class in society. So why are they the ones who snap? And is calling them "mentally ill" a way to avoid talking about race?
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-are-so-many-mass-shootings-committed-by-young-white-men-623
No indication of religion.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/27/us/mass-shootings/
No indication of religion.
And, in fact, the Mother Jones piece goes back to 1982. Why do you suppose that is?
Answer: because recent shootings are more often motivated by Islam.
There are as many potential mass murderers in other modern nations, like England, Australia etc. Its just that there are fewer mass shootings because the guns aren't as readily available.
How long it will take for that reality to be admitted?
I'll admit it: guns are more available here than in England and Australia. There, feel better?
Now, this is the part where you tell us to change our gun laws and I tell you to mind your own business.