California 12/2/15...too much of this

[rklein]

In another act of senseless violence, there has been a shooting in CA today. I am seeing way too much of this, lately.

Personally, I'm not a big believer in the value of prayer, and I really don't want this to degenerate into a useless debate on gun control...

I just hope everyone who visits and posts on this forum, clearly understands the need to be kind to others and accepting of other people and their lifestyles and beliefs.

[tallyho]

Just about to post a thread on this.

Another tragedy, my thoughts and condolences to all concerned. I hope no members and their families are involved.

[Ninja J.]

I just hope everyone who visits and posts on this forum, clearly understands the need to be kind to others and accepting of other people and their lifestyles and beliefs.

This is such a simple message but it's so good and so true it needs repeating. No matter how one feels about immigration, politics, gun control, terrorism, religion, race or gender, it really just comes down to not being a giant douche to others. No matter what politics or religion you have, it shouldn't be so hard to do the right thing. There wouldn't need to be debates or laws coming from these senseless tragedies if people understood the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. Such a sad and senseless tragedy. My hearts aches for these victims and future victims of these acts and others like it.

[jimbobklyn5]

pray4SB.png (679.31 KiB) Viewed 12463 times

[sugarcoater]

It feels awkward having this topic on a site for superheroine peril. And now celebrities will post hashtags with pointless words on them that serve no purpose (anyone remember the hashtag for "bring back our girls" or Coney 2012?). What has ever been accomplished with hashtags when it comes to tragedies? No one actually did anything in either case. Same for the tragedy in France. Sorry, just in a cynical mood these days; the use of a thread in a place I go to escape from the mainstream news brings it out of me.

Realistically, this isn't anything new. Humanity has always had various forms of violence--it's an endless cycle. We hear about this shooting, but all the senseless inner city shootings go predominantly unreported unless the media can tag the incident as racist police versus innocent minority.
Psychologists have stated that the way the media glorifies the shooters by posting their images, grievances, manifestos, and life story serves only to encourage more shootings. If the media called out the scum who do this for what they are--scum--these psychotic morons will be inspired to commit such acts.
Then there are the terrorist shootings that will continue until the western world decides the gradual decimation of western values is not to be allowed to happen. But that will take courage by leaders and a willingness to pursue a path of lesser evil, two things politicians are loathe to do as they run for re-election as a popularity contest.

Again, pardon my cynicism.

[Bert]

The U.S. is unique in many ways among developed countries. Highest number of guns, highest incarceration rate, largest income disparity between CEO's and workers...these differences are not by accident. Americans insist on the conditions that makes these stats possible. I live in Canada. As a close neighbor and a heavy consumer of American culture via television, movies and news, it often astonishes me how different Americans are to Canadians. We certainly have our own problems, and believe me we are as messed up as everyone else, but the mass shooting thing happens far more often in the States than anywhere else and it seems like there is no collective will to address it. These killing sprees will keep happening. It has become part of the culture. Normalized. That is profoundly sad.

[athenaartemis]

While I think it is good to talk about this tragedy, I think we should withhold judgments and conclusions until the investigators have gathered the facts.

My hopes for a better time for all victims, their families and those who care about them.

My thanks to the first responders!

[DrDominator9]

Sugarcoater's response about these threads having no purpose because they achieve nothing is understandable. Yes, many of us search this site for avenues of escape and to have the real world thrust upon us here can be disconcerting and annoying. But the fact is that this site is a true community where friendships are formed and even arguments are aired. And it is precisely that feeling of community that battles against such acts as what happened in San Bernadino and Paris and all the other tragedies. Coming here and sharing ones feelings? It's not worthless. It's the act of knitting together the fabric we feel has been ripped apart. It's a small thing but powerful. Something humans do when facing danger...cling together.

[Mr. X]

I just hope everyone who visits and posts on this forum, clearly understands the need to be kind to others and accepting of other people and their lifestyles and beliefs.

Wait, how is this somehow my obligation. Isn't it the shooters who were intolerant? Why do you think placating these people will stop them? Do you think they shoot things cause they want Mac and Cheese or a DVD player?

Concentrate on the criminal not on "fixing" the rest of us. I'm not broken... the guy who shot people is broken.

No I am NOT understanding of these jackass nutters. If this is a "lifestyle" it has no worth.

[tallyho]

It wasn't about understanding the murderers, it was about understanding that all the hundreds of millions of muslims in the world are NOT murderers and have nothing to do with these people who have turned their back on the beliefs they purport to follow, as indeed all followers of any peaceful faith are not to blame for the acts of individuals who say they have acted in the name of that Faith by committing atrocities.

[Mr. X]

It wasn't about understanding the murderers, it was about understanding that all the hundreds of millions of muslims in the world are NOT murderers and have nothing to do with these people who have turned their back on the beliefs they purport to follow, as indeed all followers of any peaceful faith are not to blame for the acts of individuals who say they have acted in the name of that Faith by committing atrocities.

I've been hearing this false argument going around and NOBODY is arguing ALL the Muslims are bad. That's a red herring. I can disagree with Nazis for example without blaming all Germans.

Nobody of any rational merit is making an argument to blame all muslims. In fact what I hear are Muslims generally assuming the American populace will do something in reprisal and so they wish to have security... which I find rather laughable given why can they generalize but I can't.

But I'm not going ignore radicalism.

[sugarcoater]

I don't want to seem insensitive, but my point about "no purpose" is in relation to celebrities putting hashtags out there for various tragedies. They do nothing more, but they seem to feel as though they have done something for the victims, some sort of social media justice. Yet despite all the hashtags, nothing has changed. The masses temporarily hear about the celebrities' cause of the day, and then it all fades and the masses move on to the next tragedy. What does sending out a hashtag even do? Notify fans who somehow missed out on the tragedy? I'm just tired of the Hollywood stars and pro athletes (probably told by their agents that saying something about the tragedy would up their Q factor) hashtagging various social issues but doing nothing more. It comes across as disingenuous. But again, I'm cynical.
As for people coming here to come together, I guess if that's what bring someone out of a dark place, so be it. But it seems to me that a more effective method would be to talk to friends, family, teammates, co-workers, neighbors, etc. Or perhaps look into a site that is dedicated to foreign affairs or domestic news, as people there are well versed in the news and can share more insight on the topic. For example, how does one even begin to assess the nature of Muslim culture and Muslim extremist culture. Are there simply the two versions, or is there a spectrum of the religion? According to some studies, there is a large percentage of "mainstream" Muslims who are sympathetic to the extremists.
But the Muslim topic is but one source of the mass shootings. There is gang violence, work-related shootings, lunatics and psychotics (like the shootings in Colorado), and so much more. In short, there certainly is no easy answer. For all the concerns that America is a violent, gun-obsessed country, we can also look to America as one of the most accepting and diverse countries in the world. From what I've seen--and this is admittedly anecdotal--countries that have a more homogenous culture and fewer opportunities to change one's economic wellbeing have fewer shootings because people all have the same values and people are resigned to their lot in life. It could also be noted that America has a major problem with kids born out of wedlock. When the #1 commonality among prisoners is an absent father, perhaps we might begin to have a conversation about that issue as a nation. There are books written on that topic, and Civil Rights leaders were concerned about the disintegration of the nuclear family back in the 60s. As two of the key traits of boys growing up without a father are violence and misogyny, is it any wonder why--with so many kids being born out of wedlock--we have so many violent males in our society?

I would close by writing that I respect the people in this forum, and I am grateful to have access to it. Probably got carried away a bit in writing this post and response, and I hope I did not offend anyone in putting in my two cents.

[ksire_99]

Definition of a Tragedy: an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe.

The terrorist attack in California is not a Tragedy, unless you believe that not dealing with the source of these attacks is Tragic.

Not calling these events terrorist attacks and saying who is doing them (radical Islamists), is a tragedy.

As for the folks that want to bash those of us that will call it for what it is, think about this.

All ISIL members are Muslim,
Not all Muslims are radical/at war with the rest of the world.

Remember, these monsters will kill anyone who does not agree with them, including Muslims. There first goal is to bring the entire Muslim world under their Caliphate. So either your with them or against them.

This is a WAR. A war of how you and me live our lives. A war of ideas. They do not want you and me to live a tolerant and free life. For THEM (radical Muslims) it is either conform to their ways of life or death. Which for them, death is not good enough for all us blasphemers.

Now, for anyone, and I mean anyone on this board who thinks someone that has been posting in these thread is 'evil' or even 'bad' is pure ludacris. I DO BELIEVE we all are ALL ONE when it comes to the hate of ISIL and their ilk. I also believe that until everyone takes them really serious the problem will not only not go away but get larger. Much larger.

[Bert]

ISIL is a political entity, born of the chaos caused by Bush's disastrous Iraq war and the Syrian civil war. Within the areas where they are active, many regular people see them as the least awful option. For them, at least ISIL brings order; they have power, some degree of safety, schools - really basic stuff that they had been missing for years. All the terror attacks function as recruitment material for islamists abroad. ISIL is very media savvy and work very hard on recruitment. Disaffected male youth are an easy target.

Unintended consequences are a bitch. The Iraq war destabilized a region rife with simmering sectarian resentment and grudges. The west created the country of Iraq out of thin air about 100 years ago. The U.S. supported the strongman government of Saddam for many years, in the interest of stability in a country that might otherwise be torn apart by sectarian strife. When the U.S. removed Saddam, the factions went to war with each other and life for everyday people deteriorated into a nightmare. From those ashes came ISIL.

Pre-war Iraq had a good standard of living. So did pre-civil war Syria. Now they are smoking ruins and literally millions of regular people are fleeing for their lives. Fighting ISIL is almost pointless. Even if they can be "defeated", without addressing the underlying instability, another uprising will simply follow in ISIL's wake. What we have been doing is obviously not working. Continuing on the same path seems to meet Einstein's definition of insanity. The world community has to find a way to offer people in the region the basic necessities of life - security, food and shelter, and economic stability - to reverse the flow of refugees. Until then, ISIL or groups like them will continue to thrive. Nature abhors a vacuum - if you remove the State's ability to provide order, something else will take its place.

So, finally, the point. The Muslimness of ISIL is almost completely irrelevant. The conflict is over who can provide some stability in a desperately war-torn area. All the atrocities are just PR. In no way am I excusing the attackers for the horrible consequences of their actions. They must be hunted down. Measures are necessary to help protect us from further attacks. But the problem isn't going away until the people of the affected areas can once again live a peaceful life. That's a hard goal to accomplish with more warplanes and bombs.

[tallyho]

Definition of a Tragedy: an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe..

The terrorist attack in California is not a Tragedy, unless you believe that not dealing with the source of these attacks is Tragic. [/quote]
As terrorism is a crime then surely this the bill of being a tragedy by your own definition?

All ISIL members are Muslim,

On the basis that they do not practice the beliefs they pretend to follow then is that the case? All ISIL members say they are Muslim yet allISIL members by default are breaking the tenets of the Koran on a daily basis

Now, for anyone, and I mean anyone on this board who thinks someone that has been posting in these thread is 'evil' or even 'bad' is pure ludacris. I DO BELIEVE we all are ALL ONE when it comes to the hate of ISIL and their ilk..

As far as I know, no one has dubbed anyone here evil, but given after the Charlie Hebdo incident French hot heads firebombed a Keebab house in the south of France that had nothing to do with it (and even if it did it should have been a job for the police) I think the original plea that expressed a hope that posters here would be able to see the difference and be tolerant was a reasonable one given the fact that some people in all groups/nationalities who cannot act directly against those responsible feel the need to lash out indiscriminately.

[tallyho]

It wasn't about understanding the murderers, it was about understanding that all the hundreds of millions of muslims in the world are NOT murderers and have nothing to do with these people who have turned their back on the beliefs they purport to follow, as indeed all followers of any peaceful faith are not to blame for the acts of individuals who say they have acted in the name of that Faith by committing atrocities.

I've been hearing this false argument going around and NOBODY is arguing ALL the Muslims are bad. That's a red herring. I can disagree with Nazis for example without blaming all Germans.

Nobody of any rational merit is making an argument to blame all muslims. In fact what I hear are Muslims generally assuming the American populace will do something in reprisal and so they wish to have security... which I find rather laughable given why can they generalize but I can't.

But I'm not going ignore radicalism.

Nobody has said that you were, but you cannot call it a 'false argument' and a 'red herring' when the first thing world leaders do after such incidents is appeal for calm and to not retaliate indiscriminately. The fact is whilst YOU may not be saying all Muslims are bad, SOME PEOPLE see it that way. The original post was (I thought anyway) an appeal that hopefully nobody here would be that intolerant

[tallyho]

I just hope everyone who visits and posts on this forum, clearly understands the need to be kind to others and accepting of other people and their lifestyles and beliefs.

Wait, how is this somehow my obligation. Isn't it the shooters who were intolerant? Why do you think placating these people will stop them? Do you think they shoot things cause they want Mac and Cheese or a DVD player?

Concentrate on the criminal not on "fixing" the rest of us. I'm not broken... the guy who shot people is broken.

No I am NOT understanding of these jackass nutters. If this is a "lifestyle" it has no worth.

rkleins comment was (to me) clearly a reference to the wider muslims not the radicals - you seemed to equate that reference to the individuals responsible for these acts in your comment above by referring to 'them' and 'placating these people' when no mention had been made of placating the terrorists. So when you say 'nobody is suggesting ALL muslims...' to me it looked as if you were suggesting precisely that with your terminology. If it wasn't then fine, but it was just the juxtaposition of you referencing the quote above yours with the perpetrators of the atrocity giving that impression.

I bare no ill will to anyone here.

[ksire_99]

I just hope everyone who visits and posts on this forum, clearly understands the need to be kind to others and accepting of other people and their lifestyles and beliefs.

Wait, how is this somehow my obligation. Isn't it the shooters who were intolerant? Why do you think placating these people will stop them? Do you think they shoot things cause they want Mac and Cheese or a DVD player?

Concentrate on the criminal not on "fixing" the rest of us. I'm not broken... the guy who shot people is broken.

No I am NOT understanding of these jackass nutters. If this is a "lifestyle" it has no worth.

rkleins comment was (to me) clearly a reference to the wider muslims not the radicals - you seemed to equate that reference to the individuals responsible for these acts in your comment above by referring to 'them' and 'placating these people' when no mention had been made of placating the terrorists. So when you say 'nobody is suggesting ALL muslims...' to me it looked as if you were suggesting precisely that with your terminology. If it wasn't then fine, but it was just the juxtaposition of you referencing the quote above yours with the perpetrators of the atrocity giving that impression.

I bare no ill will to anyone here.

I was VERY CLEAR: them = radical islamists

and I will add, it is borderline moronic to assume when someone says 'them' to ASSUME they are talking all Muslims!

[Bert]

In an almost unprecedented move, The NY Times has printed an editorial on their front page arguing for gun control.

[sugarcoater]

The last few posts are why I think this topic is best for other sites. My assumption is that most posts on such a topic as this one won't be healing in nature but will be argumentative. I would anticipate several back-and-forth posts about the various matters connected to the recent shooting, with hopefully limited rancor. But I don't see the postings as an opportunity for healing, more as an opportunity to shout into the void (which I do on occasion).

Having not read the gun control article, I'll simply say that CA has a ton of gun control laws in comparison to other states. Unless guns are completely outlawed, which should never happen (people in rough neighborhoods should have a right to protect themselves, especially when it takes the police up to an hour to arrive in some cases), there will never be enough laws for non-law abiding citizens to be incapable of getting their hands on weapons. Life is messy. Humanity never had and never will eliminate all violence; we can only temper it to some degree. So while I am not suggesting America do nothing, I am suggesting they avoid a simple knee-jerk reaction and trot out the same old jargon about gun control. People who plan on evil acts don't really follow laws. For whatever reason, that detail seems to escape most politicians (or they know that but also know most of their constituents aren't smart enough to know empty rhetoric when they hear it). In some dark irony, according to what I've read, the location of the San Bernardino shooting was a gun-free zone. Laws on guns are not going to solve the problem. Criminals do not follow laws.

[Bert]

If the most respected newspaper in the U.S. puts an editorial on the front page for the first time in like 90 years, one can assume the topic is important. I would just point out that the U.S. has the most guns, easiest access to guns, and the most mass shootings (by far) of all developed countries. These incidents are extremely rare in other countries, and commonplace in the U.S. Maybe it takes looking in from the outside to see it, I don't know. People from other countries just shake their heads in amazement when these horrible shootings keep happening and no one does anything about it. It seems...crazy.

[ksire_99]

Definition of a Tragedy: an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe..

The terrorist attack in California is not a Tragedy, unless you believe that not dealing with the source of these attacks is Tragic.

As terrorism is a crime then surely this the bill of being a tragedy by your own definition?

Terrorism is an act of war. Treating it like a crime is idiotic.

All ISIL members are Muslim,

On the basis that they do not practice the beliefs they pretend to follow then is that the case? All ISIL members say they are Muslim yet allISIL members by default are breaking the tenets of the Koran on a daily basis

What do you think "Radical" means?

Now, for anyone, and I mean anyone on this board who thinks someone that has been posting in these thread is 'evil' or even 'bad' is pure ludacris. I DO BELIEVE we all are ALL ONE when it comes to the hate of ISIL and their ilk..

As far as I know, no one has dubbed anyone here evil, but given after the Charlie Hebdo incident French hot heads firebombed a Keebab house in the south of France that had nothing to do with it (and even if it did it should have been a job for the police) I think the original plea that expressed a hope that posters here would be able to see the difference and be tolerant was a reasonable one given the fact that some people in all groups/nationalities who cannot act directly against those responsible feel the need to lash out indiscriminately.[/quote]

"Hot heads"? There is no place for those Hot Heads.
Tolerance is what the radical muslims are trying to destroy.

[Femina]

If the most respected newspaper in the U.S. puts an editorial on the front page for the first time in like 90 years, one can assume the topic is important. I would just point out that the U.S. has the most guns, easiest access to guns, and the most mass shootings (by far) of all developed countries. These incidents are extremely rare in other countries, and commonplace in the U.S. Maybe it takes looking in from the outside to see it, I don't know. People from other countries just shake their heads in amazement when these horrible shootings keep happening and no one does anything about it. It seems...crazy.

Things DO get done about it. The shooters are almost universally captured and imprisoned (or commit suicide in many instances as well) which is basically what happens to any criminal anywhere else. Shootings aren't limited to America, we just witness them through our own cultural lens. In other countries shootings are just more correctly labeled as Terrorism, but to say that America has 'more shootings' than other countries is ludicrous. Yes we seem have more cases of psychos and going on a shooting sprees as long as you consider Terrorists in other countries to be something 'different' from a psycho on a murder spree. Paris was just bombed, the middle east is in turmoil, even Australia had that guy in the bar and surprise a lot of it has been Isis stirring up trouble. The world has always held its share of crazies in relation to normal human beings, and there are more human beings than ever before so there are likely to be more crazy people as well.

The thing is that very simply, guns aren't the problem, knives aren't the problem, weapons and fire and bombs aren't the problem, and they never were. Murder can be enacted with knives, and sticks, and rocks, and poison, and soap, and fists, and teeth and fingernails and chains and cars etc. The problem is that some human beings are just violent, some break under some personal stress, a few are born sociopaths. Human beings are violent and will do violent things forever, and when they do the rest of us will continue to be unsettled by it because it is by its nature unsettling, but there is very little to be 'done' about it outside what we already do because enforcing gun control will never guerentee the safety of school children, outlawing video games will never protect our high schools, decrying Batman will not make our theaters safe. All those places are exactly as safe now as they have EVER been or ever will be from the criminally insane and willfully criminal corners of the world. As human beings we simply bother to recognize everyday risk when these tragedies occur, and demand something be done about the impossible because it makes us feel like we're responding, but make no mistake, insanity can not be culturally 'dealt with.' anymore than it can live without water. It's just a fact.

[Bert]

"The thing is that very simply, guns aren't the problem, knives aren't the problem, weapons and fire and bombs aren't the problem, and they never were. Murder can be enacted with knives, and sticks, and rocks, and poison, and soap, and fists, and teeth and fingernails and chains and cars etc. The problem is that some human beings are just violent, some break under some personal stress, a few are born sociopaths."

Every country has people who are violent, stressed or sociopathic. That's why other countries restrict access to guns, to keep them from killing large numbers of people. The math here is pretty simple. Easy access to guns + crazy people = lots of mass killings. Tougher access to guns + crazy people = fewer mass killings. You can deny all you want but the evidence backs it up 100%. I don't know how else to put it. These mass killings almost never happen in other developed countries. They happen with almost metronomic regularity in the U.S. Maybe this is a case of Americans lacking curiosity or knowledge of the rest of the world. Maybe you guys don't see how much of an outlier you are on this. Whatever the reason, your citizens are being shot to pieces on a regular basis and the rest of the world can't believe you won't do anything about it.

[Femina]

"The thing is that very simply, guns aren't the problem, knives aren't the problem, weapons and fire and bombs aren't the problem, and they never were. Murder can be enacted with knives, and sticks, and rocks, and poison, and soap, and fists, and teeth and fingernails and chains and cars etc. The problem is that some human beings are just violent, some break under some personal stress, a few are born sociopaths."

Every country has people who are violent, stressed or sociopathic. That's why other countries restrict access to guns, to keep them from killing large numbers of people. The math here is pretty simple. Easy access to guns + crazy people = lots of mass killings. Tougher access to guns + crazy people = fewer mass killings. You can deny all you want but the evidence backs it up 100%. I don't know how else to put it. These mass killings almost never happen in other developed countries. They happen with almost metronomic regularity in the U.S. Maybe this is a case of Americans lacking curiosity or knowledge of the rest of the world. Maybe you guys don't see how much of an outlier you are on this. Whatever the reason, your citizens are being shot to pieces on a regular basis and the rest of the world can't believe you won't do anything about it.

Our citizens are not being shot to pieces. I won't argue gun control wouldn't even lessen the impact of killings even, every year there are 0-3ish shootings perpetrated by people who are certifiably insane for whatever reason and if they had to use a knife or a sword they'd probably kill fewer people, that's logic, yet often enough these shootings are utilizing weaponry that IS illegal to own in the US. I'd argue that American shootings are more common than they are in other developed countries because those countries are actually MORE developed than America. In most instances, 'developed' countries are developing younger than America. As the oldest Capitalist nation, America's wide eyed idealists are dead, and their greedy children have taken over to run things breeding a much less satisfied country than most other developed nations.

Finally, this was an ISIS shooting, and no different whatsoever from the lady who killed the police in Paris or any of the other recent ISIS attacks all over the world. They are fear mongering, and because human beings are easily terrified, its working.

[Bert]

Allow me to summarize your response:

You're wrong. You're right. The U.S. doesn't count. The U.S. doesn't count. The U.S. doesn't count. This one doesn't count. It's all ISIL's fault.

I'll stand by my posts. Many Americans can't see how crazy this is. It doesn't directly affect me because I rarely visit the U.S., but Jesus, wake up people.

[kingles]

It wasn't about understanding the murderers, it was about understanding that all the hundreds of millions of muslims in the world are NOT murderers and have nothing to do with these people who have turned their back on the beliefs they purport to follow, as indeed all followers of any peaceful faith are not to blame for the acts of individuals who say they have acted in the name of that Faith by committing atrocities.

I've been hearing this false argument going around and NOBODY is arguing ALL the Muslims are bad. That's a red herring. I can disagree with Nazis for example without blaming all Germans.

Nobody of any rational merit is making an argument to blame all muslims. In fact what I hear are Muslims generally assuming the American populace will do something in reprisal and so they wish to have security... which I find rather laughable given why can they generalize but I can't.

But I'm not going ignore radicalism.

There are a whole lot of people without "rational merit". There are without question many people who would argue that all Muslims are bad or a threat. I have personally spoken to people who expressed this view, and certainly have seen this view stated on the internet. It's a fringe viewpoint...no question about that. However if you look at the numbers involved, even a fringe element in the US can create a significant threat. Innocent Muslims have every right to be concerned about risk of 'reprisals' being committed against them by this misguided fringe element.

Radicalism takes many forms...

[Mr. X]

Like 1940 one can acknowledge Nazis are bad without blaming all Germans. But to say condemning Nazis is condemning Germans is a horrible red herring argument.

[kingles]

ISIL is a political entity, born of the chaos caused by Bush's disastrous Iraq war and the Syrian civil war. Within the areas where they are active, many regular people see them as the least awful option. For them, at least ISIL brings order; they have power, some degree of safety, schools - really basic stuff that they had been missing for years. All the terror attacks function as recruitment material for islamists abroad. ISIL is very media savvy and work very hard on recruitment. Disaffected male youth are an easy target.

Unintended consequences are a bitch. The Iraq war destabilized a region rife with simmering sectarian resentment and grudges. The west created the country of Iraq out of thin air about 100 years ago. The U.S. supported the strongman government of Saddam for many years, in the interest of stability in a country that might otherwise be torn apart by sectarian strife. When the U.S. removed Saddam, the factions went to war with each other and life for everyday people deteriorated into a nightmare. From those ashes came ISIL.

Pre-war Iraq had a good standard of living. So did pre-civil war Syria. Now they are smoking ruins and literally millions of regular people are fleeing for their lives. Fighting ISIL is almost pointless. Even if they can be "defeated", without addressing the underlying instability, another uprising will simply follow in ISIL's wake. What we have been doing is obviously not working. Continuing on the same path seems to meet Einstein's definition of insanity. The world community has to find a way to offer people in the region the basic necessities of life - security, food and shelter, and economic stability - to reverse the flow of refugees. Until then, ISIL or groups like them will continue to thrive. Nature abhors a vacuum - if you remove the State's ability to provide order, something else will take its place.

So, finally, the point. The Muslimness of ISIL is almost completely irrelevant. The conflict is over who can provide some stability in a desperately war-torn area. All the atrocities are just PR. In no way am I excusing the attackers for the horrible consequences of their actions. They must be hunted down. Measures are necessary to help protect us from further attacks. But the problem isn't going away until the people of the affected areas can once again live a peaceful life. That's a hard goal to accomplish with more warplanes and bombs.

The trouble is that as peace and stability in the region would be the death knell of ISIL in any case, they will not allow it as long as they have a say in the matter. Wiping them out is going to be a prerequisite of fostering stability in the region. The problem with THAT is it will cause yet more deaths of civilians and infrastructure damage, which will lead to further instability and disaffection. Further, as you say, eliminating ISIL without there being anything viable to replace it with is simply an invitation for the development of the next 'ISIL'. So what to do?

Unfortunately this is a textbook example of misguided, overly ambitious meddling probably leading to a need for yet further meddling to try to fix the damage done. Hopefully by somebody else, or at least a more broad based group like the UN or something.

[kingles]

Whatever the reason, your citizens are being shot to pieces on a regular basis and the rest of the world can't believe you won't do anything about it.

Define "anything".

[kingles]

Like 1940 one can acknowledge Nazis are bad without blaming all Germans. But to say condemning Nazis is condemning Germans is a horrible red herring argument.

Yes. My point is that while most people can and do make such distinctions, not everybody will.

[Bert]

@ kingles - I think I've been pretty clear that what the U.S. has been unable to do is control access to firearms. Last week a bill before the Senate to deny firearm sales to people on the terrorist watch list didn't pass! Republicans voted against it, citing the intolerable possibility that if an innocent person was on the watchlist in error, they might be delayed in buying a gun. That's madness masquerading as governance. Your President is addressing the nation tonight, and I expect he will try yet again to generate momentum for some form of restricting access to assault rifles. The track record isn't good, but maybe it'll be different this time.

[Blx]

Looking at this from an outsiders perspective from Europa. Nothing is going to change in America. No one is able to do anything because of the gridlock on this subject and all these shootings will keep on happening and happening.

And then the same arguments start all over again. But nothing ever changes.

[ksire_99]

A discussion on gun control has nothing to do with a terrorist attack and has no place in this discussion.

most of these terrorist attacks are with bombs, which kill more innocents.

These side discussions over gun control and Islamaphobia (sp) are distractions from the real issues of the ideological/social war that is occurring.

K

[Femina]

@ kingles - I think I've been pretty clear that what the U.S. has been unable to do is control access to firearms. Last week a bill before the Senate to deny firearm sales to people on the terrorist watch list didn't pass! Republicans voted against it, citing the intolerable possibility that if an innocent person was on the watchlist in error, they might be delayed in buying a gun. That's madness masquerading as governance. Your President is addressing the nation tonight, and I expect he will try yet again to generate momentum for some form of restricting access to assault rifles. The track record isn't good, but maybe it'll be different this time.

No ones denying that the governing body of America is run by idiots. In fact I pointedly AGREED to that sentiment in my last post and you proceeded to brush it off with a flippant response that read no more convincing than plugging your ears and shouting 'lalalalalalalalalalalala' while continuing to insist that as an outsider who rarely visits America your opinion on matters of American culture is somehow more valid... or something. I'm not exactly sure what your point was was with that post.

That FACT is that any time a motion comes to the senate floor that goes against the Constitution it rarely succeeds and gun control is no different from most. Today its gun control, tomorrow its free speech. American's don't typically like being told not to do something. We were told not to drink Alcohol, we made speakeasies. We were told not to do drugs, drugs spread like wildfire. Guns AREN'T the cause of mass killings, they are a tool utilized by killers to kill people (often people without guns) and therefore some people aren't comfortable surrendering their firearms and potentially leaving themselves vulnerable to crazy psychos who DO have them. Whether or not their sentamant or illusions of safety by possessing said firearms is TRUE doesn't change what they FEEL. Gun control has been lobbied EVERY SINGLE time there is a mass shooting, THIS time will be no different and THIS time it's no more or less crazy than before but it seems counterproductive to continue to wage a war with a motion that never succeeds in the wake of a tragedy when that time could be spent doing something more productive.

Not owning a firearm I have no illusions of safety regarding them, but I believe that letting extremes dictate cultural behavior is at least as crazy as you seem to think not having gun control laws are, that's giving in to terror, that's letting the terrorists win. Sure I didn't LIKE that Seth Rogan comedy about North Korea, but removing it from the theaters because a Dictator was crying about it was giving in to baseless hysteria and unjustified fear, something modern day human beings are quick to do.

[bushwackerbob]

First of all, I do not own a gun. One of the things I hear all the time is that we should respect other religions and cultures, even those different from our own. I appeal to all anti gun zealots both inside and outside the U.S, please respect the rights of our citizens to own guns because the right to bear arms, like it or not is in my country's DNA, back to our founding fathers. I am sure I am paraphrasing this, but I remember that a great American once said that "the pursuit of security at the expense of liberty will grant you neither liberty nor security." When I see some posts on this board, I feel like reminding people that the biggest threat to the world we live in is not Republicans, nor climate change, but cultural and religious intolerance. Can't we all just agree to disagree on cultural differences and unite against these scumbag islamofascists?

[Visitor]

California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US. However they didn't block companies selling the parts to convert legal weapons into illegal versions that were used. The only reason there weren't more deaths was they failed to remotely detonate their pipe bombs and they didn't succeed in converting all their weapons to automatics.

As long as the NRA and gun company lobbyists keep those loop holes, there will me more incidents.

[Femina]

California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US. However they didn't block companies selling the parts to convert legal weapons into illegal versions that were used. The only reason there weren't more deaths was they failed to remotely detonate their pipe bombs and they didn't succeed in converting all their weapons to automatics.

As long as the NRA and gun company lobbyists keep those loop holes, there will me more incidents.

As long as there are human beings there will continue to be more incidents. 'Loop holes' might make them slightly easier, but there will always BE loop holes because perfection is basically impossible. Fixing loop holes often simply create other loop holes. Removing guns, however, wont stop killings. As you said, California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US, but CRIMINALS got illegal weapons anyway. There will always be criminals who use guns to kill as long as human beings exist because human beings kill each other on occasion and guns can't be uninvited.

@Buswhackerbob

That would all have meant a lot more without the religious intolerance at the end of your post. Islam is a religion, therefore uniting against them is itself an act of intolerance, and the vast majority of Islam is peaceful. If you want your statement taken seriously one can't ask for acceptance of their rights to bear arms as a unilateral right whilst providing an underlying jab (however lightly or seriously) to use those weapons (or any means) to attack the rights of others.

[Helpless]

but CRIMINALS got illegal weapons anyway.

Were they illegal? They were obtained legally. How can you legally obtain illegal guns?

[Femina]

but CRIMINALS got illegal weapons anyway.

Were they illegal? They were obtained legally. How can you legally obtain illegal guns?

I was lead to believe they were modified weapons. Handguns with illegal modifications. I am somewhat mystified as to how they obtained assault rifles 'legally' however as I'd thought anything that fired automatically in California was not available. Could be I'm wrong about that as well.

[Bert]

I can't say I'm surprised about where this conversation has ended up, but I think it was worthwhile. The pro-gun views expressed here seem pretty mainstream. Sadly, the killing sprees will continue unabated while the rest of the world watches and shakes its collective head in bewilderment. You're number one - with a bullet.

[Mr. X]

@ kingles - I think I've been pretty clear that what the U.S. has been unable to do is control access to firearms. Last week a bill before the Senate to deny firearm sales to people on the terrorist watch list didn't pass! Republicans voted against it, citing the intolerable possibility that if an innocent person was on the watchlist in error, they might be delayed in buying a gun. That's madness masquerading as governance. Your President is addressing the nation tonight, and I expect he will try yet again to generate momentum for some form of restricting access to assault rifles. The track record isn't good, but maybe it'll be different this time.

Do you know how absolutely messed up the terror watch list is. Ted Kennedy ended up on that list.

There is NOTHING that can be done to guns that will prevent criminals from getting them. FRANCE PROVES THIS. France ahs very strict gun laws and the shooters got ak47s. If someone wants to kill merely not having a gun won't stop them... Tim McVeigh.

We HAD restrictive laws for long rifles before the 90s and when those were relaxed gun murders went DOWN not up and in fact have gone steadily down since the 1990s.

Disarming law abiding people is like punishing everyone is a school for the actions of a bully.

But please, how are 350 MILLION guns spread over 320 MILLION people going to get confiscated when half the US would love to start a civil war vs relinquishing them.

Terrorism is NOT a gun issue. Never has. Never will. And there are some pretty loony people who think punishing everyone else except the terrorists is some way to stop violence.

Jail the perp.

[kingles]

@ kingles - I think I've been pretty clear that what the U.S. has been unable to do is control access to firearms.

Not unable...unwilling. It is not the prevailing will of the American people to control access to firearms in any significant way. Despite the 2nd Amendment to the constitution, THIS is the reason it doesn't happen.

Last week a bill before the Senate to deny firearm sales to people on the terrorist watch list didn't pass! Republicans voted against it, citing the intolerable possibility that if an innocent person was on the watchlist in error, they might be delayed in buying a gun.

Those Republican senators are representing the prevailing views of their constituencies. They'd probably like to have an opportunity to be reelected again.

Now there is more to it than that though. On the surface, voting for a bill like that would seem like something that most people could agree on. So what's the problem? It's the 'slippery slope' concept...the tip of the wedge, etc.. As someone who has used this argument on many occasions regarding something far nearer to my heart, namely free speech...I don't think that they are wrong. It would not end at denying firearm sales to people on the terrorist watch list(regardless of how faulty that might be). It wouldn't end at restricting access to assault rifles or even outlawing their sale. Because these things alone wouldn't solve the 'problem'. So those senators are serving the interests of their gun rights supporting constituents by opposing any effort to restrict those rights.

That's madness masquerading as governance.

Well unfortunately your understanding of the current state of US politics isn't very far off the mark. In addition to what I wrote above, there are purely political reasons why the US gov't struggles to enact well...pretty much anything. In this case, as with any divisive issue...if the Democrats are for it then the Republicans will oppose it(and vice versa). A 'win' for one party is an absolute 'loss' for the other. Which is yet another reason why...

Your President is addressing the nation tonight, and I expect he will try yet again to generate momentum for some form of restricting access to assault rifles. The track record isn't good, but maybe it'll be different this time.

This almost certainly won't accomplish anything on that front. It won't be different because for better or worse not enough people are ready for it to be different, or have any desire for it to be different. That time may come...but not today.

[kingles]

I can't say I'm surprised about where this conversation has ended up, but I think it was worthwhile. The pro-gun views expressed here seem pretty mainstream. Sadly, the killing sprees will continue unabated while the rest of the world watches and shakes its collective head in bewilderment. You're number one - with a bullet.

It has been interesting for me to be in the position of debating this subject on 2 different threads...AGAINST people who I am in complete philosophical agreement with. Normally I'M the one making the anti-gun argument.

It can be very difficult to accept the fact that most Americans are not with me on a significant topic like this. For better or worse though, that's the reality of the situation. So why would I argue against the imposition of truly significant gun control laws by the US government? It's really quite simple...the PEOPLE don't want them. Of course there are a lot of people who do, but there is certainly no mandate or even anything resembling a majority. Hopefully someday the people will be ready to demand greater restrictions on the proliferation of guns in the US. Until such time though I reject the notion that the gov't should impose such legislation over the people's heads...for their own good(which would effectively be the basis of such legislation at this time).

[Bert]

"It can be very difficult to accept the fact that most Americans are not with me on a significant topic like this. For better or worse though, that's the reality of the situation. So why would I argue against the imposition of truly significant gun control laws by the US government? It's really quite simple...the PEOPLE don't want them. Of course there are a lot of people who do, but there is certainly no mandate or even anything resembling a majority. Hopefully someday the people will be ready to demand greater restrictions on the proliferation of guns in the US. Until such time though I reject the notion that the gov't should impose such legislation over the people's heads...for their own good(which would effectively be the basis of such legislation at this time)."

I decided to look into that. It turns out Americans aren't of one mind on restricting access to guns. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ntrol-laws

So, statistically, around half of Americans favour some restrictions on gun access. That tells me that it's a lack of political will. It seems like the NRA, a group largely funded by gun manufacturers, has been very successful in stymieing any attempt at legislation. Frankly I can't understand how Republicans can keep a straight face on opposing a ban on selling guns to people on the terror watchlist, but I guess keeping that NRA cash rolling in is more important than saving American lives. It does seem to flip the whole "by the people, for the people" thing on it's ear though.

[kingles]

It can be very difficult to accept the fact that most Americans are not with me on a significant topic like this. For better or worse though, that's the reality of the situation. So why would I argue against the imposition of truly significant gun control laws by the US government? It's really quite simple...the PEOPLE don't want them. Of course there are a lot of people who do, but there is certainly no mandate or even anything resembling a majority. Hopefully someday the people will be ready to demand greater restrictions on the proliferation of guns in the US. Until such time though I reject the notion that the gov't should impose such legislation over the people's heads...for their own good(which would effectively be the basis of such legislation at this time).

I decided to look into that. It turns out Americans aren't of one mind on restricting access to guns. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ntrol-laws

So, statistically, around half of Americans favour some restrictions on gun access. That tells me that it's a lack of political will.

Sorry...I had to redo all of this because it was a mess and I didn't get a chance to read the link first. That's what I get for trying to reply to something on my phone during my break at work.

The numbers mentioned in the link seem pretty reasonable to me. They don't take degree into account though. For example, how many people are only looking for slightly stricter gun laws vs. significantly stricter. How many people are like, 'No way...no how, no more anti gun legislation of any kind!". That sort of thing isn't mentioned.

Maybe I didn't make my personal viewpoint clear. The kind of stuff that has been mentioned here, or that the President mentioned in his speech Sunday night...does not meet the criteria of "truly significant gun control laws" as I used them above. To me that kind of stuff rather meets the criteria of minor changes that make some people feel good(while pissing off others), but accomplish nothing substantive.

It seems like the NRA, a group largely funded by gun manufacturers, has been very successful in stymieing any attempt at legislation. Frankly I can't understand how Republicans can keep a straight face on opposing a ban on selling guns to people on the terror watchlist, but I guess keeping that NRA cash rolling in is more important than saving American lives. It does seem to flip the whole "by the people, for the people" thing on it's ear though.

The majority of Republican voters are anti gun control. The majority of people who vote for Republican senators and congressmen are Republican voters. Therefor their personal constituencies are predominantly anti gun control...not exclusively, but predominantly. They're going to try to satisfy the wishes of the people who voted for them before any others.

Now you won't get any pro NRA arguments out of me. To be fair though, the reason the NRA is so powerful isn't the donations of weapons manufacturers...it's the 50% of the population that agrees with them. Their power is in no way commensurate with their funding.

[Visitor]

I was lead to believe they were modified weapons. Handguns with illegal modifications. I am somewhat mystified as to how they obtained assault rifles 'legally' however as I'd thought anything that fired automatically in California was not available. Could be I'm wrong about that as well.

They were legally purchased guns "borrowed" from a friend and the police are looking into that aspect since there is a 30 day restriction. The guns were then illegally modified to automatic by replacing a part that prevented that and extra capacity magazines were added on. Some of them worked at least one was found in their home that hadn't been successfully modified.

The fact is companies sell kits that make guns into an illegal version and the only purpose of these kits is to get around gun laws. The same thing happened in France where most of the weapons came from a store that sells guns that are mostly used as movie props.

[Femina]

I was lead to believe they were modified weapons. Handguns with illegal modifications. I am somewhat mystified as to how they obtained assault rifles 'legally' however as I'd thought anything that fired automatically in California was not available. Could be I'm wrong about that as well.

They were legally purchased guns "borrowed" from a friend and the police are looking into that aspect since there is a 30 day restriction. The guns were then illegally modified to automatic by replacing a part that prevented that and extra capacity magazines were added on. Some of them worked at least one was found in their home that hadn't been successfully modified.

The fact is companies sell kits that make guns into an illegal version and the only purpose of these kits is to get around gun laws. The same thing happened in France where most of the weapons came from a store that sells guns that are mostly used as movie props.

That would make them illegal firearms then, acquired illegally?

Thing is, kits just sell parts, and parts can be found from literally anywhere. Study the subject online long enough and you can figure out how to make a pistol out of pipe tubing and car starters (not really, but you take my meaning, guns can be home made) add to that the internet exists allowing anyone to purchase a single part form companies all over the place to make the gun themselves without leaving a giant single order to easily track.

At the very far end of the discussion it comes down to rights. Gun restrictions sound perfectly reasonable on the surface because they basically are, but so did corporations at their conception and now corporations are laying the foundation for utter hell on earth. In America, laws benefiting people don't happen anymore, only laws benefiting law makers and politicians. Those lawmakers and politicians would LOVE to restrict our rights in whatever way brings them more money and maintains the status quo. History is very clear with this. American rights are a long sad road of steadily declining freedoms and we tend to lose rights far more often than we GAIN them. Today its Gun restrictions, tomorrow when people are purchasing gun pieces online to make them it becomes internet restrictions on purchasing pieces of guns... and then monetary restrictions on bandwidth because what the hell we already succeeded in making one restriction to the internet why not another! in the end you've got purchasing restrictions on bits and bobs the average yoyo doesn't even REALIZE were restricted all across America and a thousand thousand homes with armed constituants who you have to FORCE to give up their arms. Americans don't like having their rights flushed down the drain and they damn well shouldn't.

Lastly is a complete (Justified) lack of faith in our government, and an underlying concern that they just MIGHT decide to steal ALL our rights someday (because they are Fudging CRAZY) and the only thing we'll have is a knife to bring to a revolutionary gunfight if we've given all our guns away. One has to imagine that if everybody in Israel were armed, Isis would have a harder time of capturing all of the country.

[bushwackerbob]

To respond to Viridian, I used the term islamofascist, not Muslim purposely. Islamofascism is a term referring to Muslim extremists who wish to wage war and endanger our way of life. Obviously, I believe that the religion of Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked by a vocal minority of believers who pervert the use of the religion for their own purposes. I respect all religions and I resent any implication otherwise.

[Femina]

To respond to Viridian, I used the term islamofascist, not Muslim purposely. Islamofascism is a term referring to Muslim extremists who wish to wage war and endanger our way of life. Obviously, I believe that the religion of Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked by a vocal minority of believers who pervert the use of the religion for their own purposes. I respect all religions and I resent any implication otherwise.

Fair enough. I know that same worshipers of Islam are as sickened by what Isis is doing as everyone else. Just to be clear as well, I am not a gun owner, but am anti gun control... I'm anti 'take rights of any kind' in general unless there's a real global catastrophe. Sure if one of these shootings say, demolished the population of California a very legitimate response would be to outlaw guns because they'd represent a very real threat to human existance, but the rarity of shootings being what they are do not necessitate in my mind the risky proposition of amending the right to bear arms, or the rights of anything at all from the constitution.