Who agrees with Obama bringing in Muslim refugees?

[cale]

Not judging someone as a dirty muslim terrorist just cause their name is eastern is ultra liberal?

The bold is your word, not mine.

I didn't believe he was a terrorist because of his name, it was based on a multitude of factors. His name certainly sparked assumptions, for which I have no regret to having. He carried out a mass murder with firearms, and he had explosives at the ready as well. His actions were in line with a multitude of other radical Islamic attacks that have taken place over the years, and he was known to possess very strong views on the topic of religion. The entire developed world has been outright threatened with these sort of attacks, it's not unreasonable when an attack is carried out that this is potentially the influence.

[marshallnoise]

The bold is your word, not mine.

I didn't believe he was a terrorist because of his name, it was based on a multitude of factors. His name certainly sparked assumptions, for which I have no regret to having. He carried out a mass murder with firearms, and he had explosives at the ready as well. His actions were in line with a multitude of other radical Islamic attacks that have taken place over the years, and he was known to possess very strong views on the topic of religion. The entire developed world has been outright threatened with these sort of attacks, it's not unreasonable when an attack is carried out that this is potentially the influence.

Worst thing is that this guy goes and gets a bride from Saudi Arabia, becomes radicalized almost instantly, comes back here, has a baby shower thrown for him and his wife by the very people he opens fire on just months earlier.

The only way to hedge against this kind of stuff is by being armed and ready. Not fearful, but ready for when the shit hits the fan. Cause, it will.

[ahrensNW]

I think we should just kill all the muslims. :roll:

[aegul44]

I think we should just kill all the muslims. :roll:

I said I wont respond anymore but this, this guy man. hahahha. Killing fastest growing religion's people which is 25%percent of world population. Good luck with that. stupidity at its highest. You win the trophy.

[mbonder]

Worst thing is that this guy goes and gets a bride from Saudi Arabia, becomes radicalized almost instantly, comes back here, has a baby shower thrown for him and his wife by the very people he opens fire on just months earlier.

The only way to hedge against this kind of stuff is by being armed and ready. Not fearful, but ready for when the shit hits the fan. Cause, it will.

I don't know what kind of "armed and ready" you mean here. If you plan to walk around with body armor on all day every day carrying an assault weapon then I imagine you could have done something, but it didn't sound like these guys would have had much issue taking out someone with a handgun, which is what most people legally carry.

Ultimately, I don't know that there was anything that could have been done to stop this type of tragedy. Outwardly, these people appeared to be like everyone else, doing normal things, living their lives. The only thing that would have set off red flags would have been the bomb materials, but from what I've heard, most of what they had could have been assembled from purchases from Home Depot.

Edit: Also, although these people were Muslim, don't think that this type of thing couldn't have just as easily been committed by people of other religions. It has happened in the past (Think Oklahoma City Bombing) and I'm sure it will happen again in the future. I think that society as a whole has gotten entirely too caught up in labeling people by religion when the distinction should simply be, there are good people and there are bad people. The bad people are in the minority, but they do have the ability to harm the good majority through their actions.

[marshallnoise]

My point about armed and ready means more people with either CCW or open carry. The reality for even the craziest of killers is that they don't want a challenge or confrontation. They want to be the aggressors and never want to be on the defense. This is why they choose gun-free zones and office parties. Their evidenced and patterned behavior show us the path that can counter their plans.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[mbonder]

They may not want a confrontation, but the perpetrators of the latest shooting certainly didn't shy away from the confrontation with the police, who had more weapons than anyone with a closed or open carry would have had.

[CorvallisBMW]

My point about armed and ready means more people with either CCW or open carry. The reality for even the craziest of killers is that they don't want a challenge or confrontation. They want to be the aggressors and never want to be on the defense. This is why they choose gun-free zones and office parties. Their evidenced and patterned behavior show us the path that can counter their plans.

Oh, so CCW and open carry is a deterrent?

The US has over 300 million guns. That's one gun for every man, women, and child. CCW is legal in every single state. Open carry is legal in a majority of states. You're hundreds (if not thousands) of times more likely to encounter an armed civilian in the US than you are in any other place on earth. We have the most arms, in the hands of the most people, in the most places, anywhere in this planet.

So if being armed deters crime, then why isn't the US the safest place on earth?

The reality for even the craziest of killers is that they don't want a challenge or confrontation.

I'm going to re-quote this just because it's so incredible stupid. None of these mass shooters expect to get out alive. They don't give two fucks about surviving or not, they know it's going to end in their deaths. They don't fear confrontation one iota because they know it's all going to end for them no matter what. Their only goal is to stay alive long enough to inflict as much harm and suffering as possible. Do you really think they're afraid of your lily white ass and your Rambo fantasies about saving the world? Please, don't flatter yourself.

[marshallnoise]

They may not want a confrontation, but the perpetrators of the latest shooting certainly didn't shy away from the confrontation with the police, who had more weapons than anyone with a closed or open carry would have had.

They expected the confrontation when they were caught. They had no reason to believe that their co-workers were armed at the Christmas party. Had they, they probably would have just tried to bomb the place instead.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[mbonder]

They expected the confrontation when they were caught. They had no reason to believe that their co-workers were armed at the Christmas party. Had they, they probably would have just tried to bomb the place instead.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

So how is that any better? I think you just proved that it doesn't matter if civilians have guns, bad people with bad intentions will commit crimes regardless of whether there are deterrents or not, they WANT to commit the crime.

[marshallnoise]

So how is that any better? I think you just proved that it doesn't matter if civilians have guns, bad people with bad intentions will commit crimes regardless of whether there are deterrents or not, they WANT to commit the crime.

It is better. Shooting a gun is much easier than building a bomb that works. The same people who committed the recent shooting left a remote bomb for the police that failed.

But the underlying point is that you can't stop crazy but you can deter it.

Banning 300 million fire arms has succeeded in allowing psychopaths to do what they want. Psychopaths get guns no matter what.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[CorvallisBMW]

Banning 300 million fire arms has succeeded in allowing psychopaths to do what they want. Psychopaths get guns no matter what.

Where were 300 million firearms banned?

[CorvallisBMW]

So how is that any better? I think you just proved that it doesn't matter if civilians have guns, bad people with bad intentions will commit crimes regardless of whether there are deterrents or not, they WANT to commit the crime.

Exactly. There will always be those in this world who, for various reasons, wish to do harm to others. The best thing we can do to prevent this is to make it as difficult as possible to dole out that harm. Allowing them to purchase unlimited quantities of arms and ammunition is the exact opposite of prevention; it's actively encouraging them.

As I said, the US has more armed civilians in more places by orders of magnitude than any other place on earth. It does nothing to stop these kinds of barbaric acts because these people aren't afraid of dying, and therefore the threat of death is not a deterrent.

[mbonder]

It is better. Shooting a gun is much easier than building a bomb that works. The same people who committed the recent shooting left a remote bomb for the police that failed.

But the underlying point is that you can't stop crazy but you can deter it.

Banning 300 million fire arms has succeeded in allowing psychopaths to do what they want. Psychopaths get guns no matter what.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Banning or restricting gun ownership does work.

And for those that don't think the US has a problem with unrestricted gun ownership, view this chart:



And this one:



Notice the countries with more weapons per person have higher gun violence deaths...

[marshallnoise]

Where were 300 million firearms banned?

Laws do not allow open carry of any guns in California, most states make conceal carry difficult to obtain. So all those guns are at home and are unavailable when shit hits the fan.

The effect is a ban from having firearms where they could be useful; in public.