What's new
By:

More Muslim violence in Europe

The Black Swordsman said:
What statistics?

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Taking rights away from citizens is not the answer. It does more harm than good. Of course I expect irrational people to disagree with the facts.
Click to expand...

Is it possible for two reasonable, rational, educated, well-informed people to disagree about something, or is that just an indication that one of them isn't really reasonable, rational, educated and well-informed?
 
One Brow said:
I have not read this thread, but I did a search for Indonesia. No one seems to have mentioned it. Indonesia is the fourth-largest country in the world and had the plurality of Muslims. They are not free from terrorism, but it's not an issue there as it is in Iraq or Afghanistan. Anyone who thinks Islam is inherently repressive or violent needs to explain why Indonesia does not exhibit this. Anyone who thinks Islam rejects repression and violence needs to explain why it's so prevalent from Bangladesh to Mauritania.

Personally, I don't know how to tease out Islam from the other cultural aspects of Northern Africa, the Middle East, and South Central Asia. Culture is complicated and multi-faceted. Islam has a problem, but the problem is not just Islam.
Click to expand...

I never say Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of people. People can be peaceful and harmful.

Islam says to defend yourself. Some people use this to defend yourself against robbers. Some people use it like Osama and justify their actions as self defense.

This can be applied to nihilism as well. Some people are nihilistic and say "nothing matters so you might as well be a good guy and be a good person treating people good." Some people are nihilistic and become hedonists "nothing matters so might as well get as much pleasure as I possibly can through any means possible."
 
One Brow said:
I have not read this thread, but I did a search for Indonesia. No one seems to have mentioned it. Indonesia is the fourth-largest country in the world and had the plurality of Muslims. They are not free from terrorism, but it's not an issue there as it is in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
eh? Ethnic/Religious violence, including terrorism, is a pretty serious issue in Indonesia.
 
dalamon said:
3) Be nice, co-existing, and polite to your siblings, parents, cousins, neighbours, and fellow strangers. I go with a motto of trying to be as nice to each and every sinlge person I meet, as possible. In fact, I go out of my way to try and connect with strangers, especially if they share beliefs or lifestyles different than mine. In my opinion, this sort of approach is one that is endorsed by, and what I have learned from Islam.
Click to expand...

yeah-right.gif
 
The Black Swordsman said:
What statistics?

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Taking rights away from citizens is not the answer. It does more harm than good. Of course I expect irrational people to disagree with the facts.
Click to expand...

The ones available from the federal government. Homes with guns have higher death rates from guns.

I don't disagree with facts, but I do disagree with selective presentation and questionable interpretation of facts. For example, which of the facts on your website do you think argues against gun control, and why?
 
GVC said:
eh? Ethnic/Religious violence, including terrorism, is a pretty serious issue in Indonesia.
Click to expand...

In comparison to to other ethnically diverse countries (and even some non-diverse countries) in Southern Asia?
 
Stoked said:
There are just as many statistics against gun control.
Click to expand...

I find those statistics tend to be confounded with other epidemiological factors. If homes in the same neighborhood that lack guns are safer than homes in the same neighborhood with guns, and you see this in neighborhoods all across the spectrum, that makes guns the significant factor. When you compare crime rates in State X between years Y and Z, there are a lot of compounding factors.
 
One Brow said:
I find those statistics tend to be confounded with other epidemiological factors. If homes in the same neighborhood that lack guns are safer than homes in the same neighborhood with guns, and you see this in neighborhoods all across the spectrum, that makes guns the significant factor. When you compare crime rates in State X between years Y and Z, there are a lot of compounding factors.
Click to expand...

I'd type up a rebuttal but there is a 6,000 page thread on that already.
 
One Brow said:
The ones available from the federal government. Homes with guns have higher death rates from guns.
Click to expand...

That's really creepy.

If the feds know which homes do or do not have guns we have greater problems then libs pulling stats out of their ***.
 
PearlWatson said:
That's really creepy.

If the feds know which homes do or do not have guns we have greater problems then libs pulling stats out of their ***.
Click to expand...

If there are licenses or permits of any sort, the government knows of them, because the government assigns them.
 
One Brow said:
YOu think they should stop sharing information? That will negatively impact law enforcement.
Click to expand...

State/Federal sharing is not as frequent or as easy as most people assume. Hell! Federal agencies have a hard time sharing information amoung themselves let alone including the states.
 
PearlWatson said:
"the government" shouldn't be the feds but the states which issue them
Click to expand...

State laws can be as oppressive/restrictive of federal laws. Regardless of what level of government enacts it, the result is pretty much the same.

I like the federalism system we have in the US. In some respects, I prefer decisions made at the federal level because in some or many cases, as in theory, these decisions represent a much greater diversity of interests

Whereas at the state level, it is theoretically much easier for majorities to oppress the minorities or pass laws that reflect their views but not broader social consensus. Most prominent example is Evangelicals attempting to legislate religious dogma, but there are many others.

I like Federalism, I think it's on balance, a good thing, though imperfect in its execution.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
State laws can be as oppressive/restrictive of federal laws. Regardless of what level of government enacts it, the result is pretty much the same.

I like the federalism system we have in the US. In some respects, I prefer decisions made at the federal level because in some or many cases, as in theory, these decisions represent a much greater diversity of interests

Whereas at the state level, it is theoretically much easier for majorities to oppress the minorities or pass laws that reflect their views but not broader social consensus. Most prominent example is Evangelicals attempting to legislate religious dogma, but there are many others.

I like Federalism, I think it's on balance, a good thing, though imperfect in its execution.
Click to expand...

I don't want a federal gun registry...like the ones hitler enacted.

He made people register their guns on the pretense of safety and then he knew where they all were so he could go confiscate them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top