A tiny portion of them commit homicide. Only a tiny portion. The US ought to treat Muslims the same way we treat guns on the basis of terrorism/shootings.
Muslims are like gun owners.
Posts
Total:
117
-->
@Alec
If there is one advice to take. Don't take advice from a centrist, moderate or a libertarian on political issues.
Islam is an ideology.
Gun is a tool which can cause harm.
Islam can lead to violence.
Guns can lead to violence.
Islam as in most of their believers are not violent.
Guns are primarily used for violence.
With this in mind don't take advice from a centrist, moderate or a libertarian.
Your link is not funny nor helpful. If you were really did take the libertarian if that links is supposed to show it then you against any thing that infringes on freedom. You are basically an anarchist who is against rules because that restricts what a person can do.
-->
@Alec
Gun owners who believe that Muhammad is a messenger of God are like Muslims
-->
@Snoopy
Guns deter violence. That's why all mass shootings occur at gun-free venues.
-->
@Greyparrot
If guns deter violence then why do all mass shooting involve guns?
-->
@Greyparrot
There's something about a respectable man that would rightly be willing to kick your ass that calms people the hell down.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Islam as in most of their believers are not violent.Guns are primarily used for violence.
Guns are primarily used for protection and homicide is from a percentage standpoint, very small, just like terrorist attacks. A typical gun will almost never get shot unless it's for hunting or target shooting.
Calling me an anarchist is an ad hominid attack. I believe in few rules.
-->
@secularmerlin
At gun-free venues.
-->
@Greyparrot
If a gun was present then the venue cannot have been gun free. To call a venue where a gun was present "gun free" is logically incoherent.
-->
@secularmerlin
If guns deter violence then why do all mass shooting involve guns?
If gun free zones work, then why are most schools gun free zones and shootings are so common there, that there is a term called, "school shooting" instead of, "gun store shooting"?
-->
@secularmerlin
To call a venue where a gun was present "gun free" is logically incoherent.
Gun free venues are in theory supposed to be gun free, but school shooters don't follow the law. All gun free zones do is disarm good people, making them easy targets for shooters.
-->
@Alec
It sounds as though the problem was "one gun too many" more than "too few guns". Perhaps the secret is to keep guns out of the hands of as many potential mass shooters (aka the general public) as possible.
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps the secret is to keep guns out of the hands of as many potential mass shooters (aka the general public) as possible.
Most public people don't want to commit mass shootings, just like most Muslims don't want to do terror attacks. If you ban guns, criminals will get them illegally and will use them to commit homicide against people that can't defend themselves. This is why when Jamaica banned their guns, their homicide rate skyrocketed.
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps the secret is to keep guns out of the hands of as many potential mass shooters (aka the general public) as possible.
...Not for sale...
-->
@Alec
Do you contest that 100 percent of mass shooting and 100 percent of accidental shootings and 100 percent of unlawful shootings involve weapons?
And I quote "Correlation does not equal causation, but the revealed trend is striking: States with more gun provisions consistently see fewer gun deaths."
this means two things. The first is that statistics such as the one you quoted are not in and of themselves proof that banning firearms leads to violence and two that even if such statistics can be trusted when viewed on a larger (and therefore more comprehensive) scale they do not support your position anyway.
-->
@Alec
Not to mention it would never happen anyway because we have the 2nd amendment to deter what is occuring in Venezuela right now where guns are in the hands of the elite few instead of the many.
-->
@Snoopy
Not to mention it would never happen anyway because we have the 2nd amendment to deter what is occuring in Venezuela right now where guns are in the hands of the elite few instead of the many.
-->
@Greyparrot
The 2nd amendment calls specifically for a well regulated militia. In what way does this not describe "guns in the hands of the elite few instead of the many"?
-->
@secularmerlin
where the 2nd amendment says "the people"
-->
@secularmerlin
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"
The militia was composed of all able bodied males not exempt from service, whether it is well regulated or not. Today the supreme court would likely include women.
-->
@Greyparrot
The 2nd ammendment states that "the people" aka the general public, should form a "well regulated malitia" aka an elite few. You will also notice the words well regulated. As in gun regulations. As in gun control. Gun control is constitutional.
-->
@Snoopy
See above.
-->
@secularmerlin
No one is born that stupid. Read your constitution some time in plain English. Consider the people who wrote it, and consider why they wrote it. Otherwise you are taking the word of a national liability. Originally the 2nd amendment was held against the federal government, which to this day should have the strongest limitations against infringement. With the 14th amendment, the right was intended to be incorporated into state jurisdiction. The state and federal government may be considered differently.
-->
@secularmerlin
If you are the people(a citizen), you can have a gun, and be a part of the militia. This has been litigated many times in the SCOTUS.
Bring something new.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Guns are primarily used for violence.
is that true? citation?
what % of gun owners use them for violence?
-->
@Greyparrot
If you are the people(a citizen), you can have a gun, and be a part of the militia.
Yes. By joining the police force or the armed forces (two such malitias).
-->
@Snoopy
Originally the 2nd amendment was held against the federal government
Yes but that is Passe in today's military environment unless private citizens can own anti aircraft guns and attack drones. Small arms are insufficient to the purpose.
-->
@secularmerlin
They can also own tanks. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a few.
-->
@Greyparrot
Does he find that he has much use for them beyond conversation starters?
-->
@secularmerlin
Ask him.