Guns, Guns Guns

How many mass shootings are labeled workplace violence but should be recognized as domestic terrorist incidents?

How long were these people on the terrorist watch list?

Because of political correctness, a neighbor that was suspicious of what was going on next door decided not to call the police. Consequently, a terrorist attack occurred because the neighbor was afraid to speak up and be accused of a racist. The president is more worried about Guns in the hands of private citizens than stopping the terrorism. On this forum, we have all this forum posters from other countries telling us that we should disarm and how are government works. If the Americans did this to them, they would be screaming to the heavens about American Imperialism. Hypocrites! These are same people that get upset with average American that want detailed background checks on the Syrian refugees.

What a crazy world we live in!

Either we all hang together and fight this evil or we die separately. This is a Jihad! Either we die...convert...or we win...no other choices.

It's OK for Muslim students to pray but God help the student if he or she brings a bible to school. We are in world wide war with the Radical Muslims! It's not the Christians blowing themselves up or beheading people of different faiths. Radical Muslims = Nazis! We are probably too late to stop this coming global war. Rather than waiting on a strong leader to combat this....just maybe we the people should start to fight the coming war by uniting together as coherent international force to fight this jihad around the world. Time is so short before this spins out of control and people start using chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in terror attacks.

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:Did that stop the terrorists in France from buying Guns...

Let's see... the US has had how many HUNDRED mass shootings THIS YEAR?

France has had... 1? 2?

What the hell do you think the answer to your question is?

when are the wimps going to understand we are in WW3.

Wow, someone has no idea what a World War is, but that level of crazily over the top fear and paranoia is consistent with an apparently pathological need to cling to a weapon to make yourself feel safer from the big bad scary world I guess...

Dude, when most acts of terrorism in the US (and the western world as a whole) are committed by people connected to conservatives or extremist christian movements or the sovereign citizens (Reference), you've got exactly no justification for being as afraid of syrian refugees as you are.

smr wrote:How many mass shootings are labeled workplace violence but should be recognized as domestic terrorist incidents?

Because people would be less dead if it was called one and not the other? I'll readily agree that plenty of acts of domestic terrorism don't get called terrorism. Particularly if the skin tone of the shooter is on the lighter side, then they're "mentally unstable" instead. But what the fuck does that have to do with anything resembling a solution to the problem?

Because of political correctness, a neighbor that was suspicious of what was going on next door decided not to call the police. Consequently, a terrorist attack occurred because the neighbor was afraid to speak up and be accused of a racist.

Yes, let's focus on something that maybe possibly could have prevented one of the 300 something attacks this year. Because obviously that's where we need to look for answers!

The president is more worried about Guns in the hands of private citizens than stopping the terrorism.

You JUST COMPLAINED that those domestic shooters (hint, another words for them is "citizens") weren't being effectively watched/monitored/dealt with. And now you're bitching he's worried about them getting their hands on guns? Make up your mind.

On this forum, we have all this forum posters from other countries telling us that we should disarm and how are government works.

You know, you'd benefit a great deal from learning the difference between regulation and disarmament.

If the Americans did this to them, they would be screaming to the heavens about American Imperialism. Hypocrites!

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Show me one time there has been an outcry about American Imperialism because an American posted an opinion about something in another country on a message board.

Either we all hang together and fight this evil or we die separately. This is a Jihad!

You think the guy shooting up the PP office last week was on a Jihad? Do tell.

It is astonishing to me that the only thing your brain is capable of fixating on is when someone Muslim kills an American and somehow all the other Americans getting killed by everyone else (A MUCH larger number) just rolls right off you.

It's OK for Muslim students to pray but God help the student if he or she brings a bible to school.

Again.... bull... fucking.... shit.

It is ok for ALL students of ALL religions to pray, privately, at school.

It is not ok for ANY students of ANY religions to actively proselytize at school or attempt to use school resources or faculty or functions to endorse or spread or put a stamp of official approval on their religion.



And I'm just going to stop there because you just get more unhinged the longer that rant continues. I get it. Muslims scare the crap out of you to the point where you are frankly borderline delusionally paranoid on the subject (This is NOT World War 3)


Get a grip on yourself and deal with it.

My experience with this problem was when I was in the Army. As a result, I have a different viewpoint when a person watches his brother and sisters die. Now, I am not debating whether or not we should have been in the sand box. What I am talking about is those experiences that directly influence people. What I saw, these people do not believe in the sanctity of life but believe in death and destruction.


Many times, I am responding to multiple threads. That means my posts can be all over the map. My biggest problem is time constraints due to real life and family issues/time.

Response to PP shootout: They immediately labeled (for political reasons) that incident a domestic terrorism but can't label this domestic terrorism. How about where we had that incident in Libya and the Obama administration blamed some guy who produced a anti-Islamic video in California. That incident was a result of terrorism! The chief liar of this narrative is running for President.

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:How many mass shootings are labeled workplace violence but should be recognized as domestic terrorist incidents?

Because people would be less dead if it was called one and not the other? I'll readily agree that plenty of acts of domestic terrorism don't get called terrorism. Particularly if the skin tone of the shooter is on the lighter side, then they're "mentally unstable" instead. But what the fuck does that have to do with anything resembling a solution to the problem?

Because of political correctness, a neighbor that was suspicious of what was going on next door decided not to call the police. Consequently, a terrorist attack occurred because the neighbor was afraid to speak up and be accused of a racist.

Yes, let's focus on something that maybe possibly could have prevented one of the 300 something attacks this year. Because obviously that's where we need to look for answers!

The president is more worried about Guns in the hands of private citizens than stopping the terrorism.

You JUST COMPLAINED that those domestic shooters (hint, another words for them is "citizens") weren't being effectively watched/monitored/dealt with. And now you're bitching he's worried about them getting their hands on guns? Make up your mind.

On this forum, we have all this forum posters from other countries telling us that we should disarm and how are government works.

You know, you'd benefit a great deal from learning the difference between regulation and disarmament.

If the Americans did this to them, they would be screaming to the heavens about American Imperialism. Hypocrites!

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Show me one time there has been an outcry about American Imperialism because an American posted an opinion about something in another country on a message board.

Either we all hang together and fight this evil or we die separately. This is a Jihad!

You think the guy shooting up the PP office last week was on a Jihad? Do tell.

It is astonishing to me that the only thing your brain is capable of fixating on is when someone Muslim kills an American and somehow all the other Americans getting killed by everyone else (A MUCH larger number) just rolls right off you.

It's OK for Muslim students to pray but God help the student if he or she brings a bible to school.

Again.... bull... fucking.... shit.

It is ok for ALL students of ALL religions to pray, privately, at school.

It is not ok for ANY students of ANY religions to actively proselytize at school or attempt to use school resources or faculty or functions to endorse or spread or put a stamp of official approval on their religion.



And I'm just going to stop there because you just get more unhinged the longer that rant continues. I get it. Muslims scare the crap out of you to the point where you are frankly borderline delusionally paranoid on the subject (This is NOT World War 3)


Get a grip on yourself and deal with it.

smr wrote:My experience with this problem was when I was in the Army. As a result, I have a different viewpoint when a person watches his brother and sisters die. Now, I am not debating whether or not we should have been in the sand box. What I am talking about is those experiences that directly influence people. What I saw, these people do not believe in the sanctity of life but believe in death and destruction.

Sure, but most of "those people" aren't anyone you're more likely to run into on the streets of any American city than you are to run into some random idiot with anger control issues or mental problems or criminal intent who was easily able to get his hands on a firearm. And "those people" simply don't have the numbers to present a threat on the level you seem to have blown them up to in your mind.

Response to PP shootout: They immediately labeled (for political reasons) that incident a domestic terrorism but can't label this domestic terrorism.

Who the heck said they weren't labeling this terrorism? I've seen it called that like 50 times already in various coverage.

And what do you mean "for political reasons"? The PP shooting was *textbook* terrorism. You could put it next to "terrorism" in the dictionary as an example of the meaning of the word.

How about where we had that incident in Libya and the Obama administration blamed some guy who produced a anti-Islamic video in California. That incident was a result of terrorism!

Ummm, no.

There were two things happening.

FIRST: Widespread outbreaks of rioting and violence in multiple middle east locations, due to said video producing moron.

THEN: Attack on the compound *while* those incidents were still occurring, leading to a [i]very early[i] tentative assessment that that was another such incident. Followed very shortly as more information came in that that specific attack appeared to be pre-planned but had possibly taken advantage of the general unrest and the distractions it caused to launch the attack as well. But they were calling it terrorism on day one.

smr wrote:In 1929, the German government banned guns. In 1938, they changed the laws to allow hunting rifles and shotguns. That same act banned all Jews from owning weapons. Please get your facts straight.

I suggest you follow your own advice, get your facts straight.

The extremely irregular regulation that banned jews from having weapons came the day after the so called Kristallnacht, November 11th, and had no connection with the gun legislation in general that was altered earlier 1938, March 18th. It was an attack on a minority, not a gun legislation.

The actual GUN legislation did prevent any new permits for manufacturing arms and ammunition to be issued to companies owned wholly or partially by jews.


1929? Get your facts straight again please?

No, as part of adhering to the Versaille diktat, guns were mostly banned in 1919, which the Weimar republic government then moderated in 1928 to a more realistic regulation that was fairly harsh in some ways, but still not unrealistically so.

Then in March 1938, rifles and shotguns were mostly deregulated and gun purchase, trade and ownership in general were made much easier.

smr wrote:On this forum, we have all this forum posters from other countries telling us that we should disarm and how are government works.

Seriously, you need to learn to actually READ and UNDERSTAND.

I´ve NEVER said a word about disarming. Neither have anyone else that i can recall.

Personally i think a regulation and permit style slightly looser than what is used here now would be a fairly good balance.

smr wrote: What I saw, these people do not believe in the sanctity of life but believe in death and destruction.

Yes, the death and destruction of the people invading their nation, and then of course complicated by old feuds between various groups, nothing like what ever happend in Europe or USA before, oh noes!

smr wrote:Response to PP shootout: They immediately labeled (for political reasons) that incident a domestic terrorism

No, they most likely used that label because it sells more newspapers or gets more airtime and because it probably LOOKED like it.

Soldier on the wall:
I stand on the wall, protecting all.
I watch for the evil that will come, not the evil that is within.
Watching for the dawn, not protecting from the Dark of the lies.
The lies of the protectors, pretending to care, not to pretend to CIAR.
I care for all, and give all, but not want anyone to notice.
Politicians want to give nothing, get all, and pretend they care for all.
The man on the wall will watch, and never let an invader in, but the politician will always leave us to our ends, and line their pockets with gold.
Our leaders will ignore us, until they need us, then the soldier on the wall will be needed by all.


I do not know who wrote this to give credit to but I think this poem applies for the times. This time period is equivalent to the 1930's. War is coming and people and countries need to prepare. What we see happening in the Middle East is nothing compared to the coming Tsunami. Our common enemy is smart and intelligent. This is the time to stop the coming jihad...the coming World War. The best defense is a good offense. Time is short and we must unite in spite of different faiths and ideals because I enemies will not be merciful.

@Tenshania: I looked up the translations on goggle! My facts are straight. In addition, my ex-wife grandparents grew up in Germany and this is what they relayed to me many years ago. They were common folks but they remember what happened. I know because they average or common folks more and likely you discount their personal recollections of events that affected them their whole lives.

The E wrote:Dude, when most acts of terrorism in the US (and the western world as a whole) are committed by people connected to conservatives or extremist christian movements or the sovereign citizens (Reference), you've got exactly no justification for being as afraid of syrian refugees as you are.

I looked at the report. Unfortunately the vast majority of the incidents weren't individually listed so it's hard for me to determine whether I agree with their categorization as terrorist or not. It's rather hard to just look at aggregate data.

However, the report did specifically name the "recent" incidents with the highest body counts, of those in the USA:

Fort Hood
Boston Marathon
(San Bernardino has a high enough body count to be added)

So even from your own report there is one obvious cause for USA concern. Even if it is right about the numbers of attacks by conservatives or extremists (and since I don't have the raw data I'm not at all sure that it is), those attacks were not anywhere nearly as "effective" as the attacks by the Islamic jihadists.

One other area that the report didn't mention but produces a great deal of anxiety in the general public is how random the attacks are. The PP attack is fairly typical of "conservative" terrorism in that the individuals shot were at the PP clinic i.e. it wasn't a random target selection. This type of attack produces a great deal less psychological fear in the general public than a random attack such as the Boston Marathon or the Paris opera does.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Under our laws he wouldn't be either. Current background checks disqualifies those that are batshit crazy.

Only if they've been diagnosed. In a lot of cases the event that triggers them being sat down in front of a psychiatrist is "he just shot up a place, let's see if her gets to use an insanity defense" however.

Case in point (just one of ever-so-many):

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index ... _seri.html

Legally obtained weapon? Check.

Valid concealed carry permit? Check.

Batshit insane? Check.

Dead 7 year old girl? Check.

I bet you wish you had this post back. Where are the extremist Christians committing murder in the name of God on innocents. As far vetting Syrian refugees, I have the right as a citizen of the US to demand that our current administration follow the rule of law on immigration. Where do you have the right to tell another country what to do about immigration? Am I correct that you are from Germany or another country other than the US? See to your house that is no longer accepting Syrian refugees.

The E wrote:Dude, when most acts of terrorism in the US (and the western world as a whole) are committed by people connected to conservatives or extremist christian movements or the sovereign citizens (Reference), you've got exactly no justification for being as afraid of syrian refugees as you are.