BORDERFREE Europe,...and NOBODY has guns like in the US, specially in Switzerland!
European gun laws are generally stricter than the US - however as you point out - in the Schengen zone you effectively have the law of the laxest country everywhere. (Also true with states/ state borders in the US.
Your example of Switzerland is a bad one because:
1) Switzerland isn't even in the EU let alone Schengen.
2) Switzerland does have very high gun death rates relative to its overall crime level.
The UK on the other hand - where borders are more strongly policed and gun laws are the strictest anywhere - has a gun death rate 1/10th of Switzerland and 1/40th of the USA.
Actually even the political compass you quote is an oversimplification (Although it is a good start). In reality you require more than two dimensions AND a more complicated topological connectivity. (Almost all extremes tend to lead towards authoritarianism - even if you don't start in that direction.)
California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and yet people, intent on mass murder, still purchased fire arms.
The USA has a range of gun control laws that range from lax to very lax by European standards. Calling the California laws "strict" looks like a joke from where I'm sitting.
Terrorists will still try to commit mass murder whatever you do but without legally available guns it will be harder for them - and they may have to resort to less effective (knives) or less reliable methods (bombs).
Of course God has rarely fixed any of these things - something to do with "Free Will" I believe.
members of Congress got a total of $30.6 million from the NRA in 2014. And some commenters on this site, it seems, can see nothing wrong with that.
Yes and they say that banning guns won't stop terrorists - well that is a half truth which (like a half brick) is easier to throw than a whole lie.
The reality is that lack of legally available guns does reduce reduce the severity of terrorist attacks. In the UK where all automatic weapons and handguns are illegal, the terrorists have had to rely on knives (considerably less effective) and bombs (considerably less reliable).
Banning guns won't stop terorists - but it will reduce the number and severity of the casualties.
I could see the benefit of a bottom up approach, not by being suspicious of your neighbors, but whenever possible reaching out to those who are isolated. But then again, from what we know this young family had few signs of radicalization, only pledging allegiance to ISIS mere hours before the attack.
Gun control would probably help a bit - by making it harder to obtain weaponry - although the best argument for it is to reduce accidental shootings especialy involving children.
Most first world countries have stricter gun control than the US and have consequently fewer gun deaths - only the wilfully blind fail to see this.
However these people will use bombs if guns are unavailable.
In spite of what you say about the family in this case it is generally true that most perpetrators are already on the security services radar so a bigger haystack is the last thing we need.
Actually the DWP makes sense. They do investigations into false claims (fraud) for various benefits or other credits which are paid to people. This can lead to criminal charges, potentially. As one way to identify fraudulent claims is through online activity (e.g. "I can't work because I'm disabled" -> pictures of someone on an action holiday), or claiming to be single and posting relationship updates on Facebook, this can help with actual criminal (or civil) charges.
In that case they should have been happy to promote this type of thing as the purpose of the act instead of hiding it behind terrorism.
I merely quoted the poll that I presumed that the previous commenter had remembered. Not offering an opinion - just supplying facts.
Other Al-Jazeera polls are broken down by country and don't include Saudi so it may not be included in that one anyway. However I don't think you can dismiss such a poll quite so easily when it gives such a high percentage.
ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terrorists try to win converts they cite Western atrocities as a primary reason to take part in violent acts — to get revenge on behalf of the victims.
Uriel is right.
No he isn't. The citing of western atrocities is propaganda - and you have fallen for it.
a legitimate grievance is the strongest fuel for insurtherection.
Unfortunately the facts don't fit your theory. Of course you have to perceive a grievance BUT it is also necessary to perceive some chance of success.
Many people throughout the world and through history have had legitimate grievances but have not rebelled until they could see some chance of success. Good examples are the peoples of Greece, Bulgaria, Romania etc who suffered for centuries under the Ottomans but were not in a position to rebel successfully until the Ottomans had declined and Britain, France and Russia were in a position to help out.
But greater scholars than you
Nice combination of argument from authority and ad hominem. Two logical fallacies in one sentence - good work!
On the post: President Obama Hints At Asking Silicon Valley To Magically Block Terrorists From Using Tech Products
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Denial
Sorry - it is no worse than the US in those respects and at least our "prison guards" aka police don't shoot us at random quite so often.
On the post: President Obama Hints At Asking Silicon Valley To Magically Block Terrorists From Using Tech Products
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Denial
Then perhaps you can explain The Troubles in Ireland?
Ireland is separate Island from Great Britain - and that certainly helped to reduce the impact of the troubles.
The troubles are long gone now and guns were never quite the issue anyway.
N. Ireland has laxer gun laws than the rest of the UK so is not relevant to this discussion.
Basically the UK has very strict firearms control and consequent extremely low (and actually falling) gun homicide rates.
Gun control works here and has saved lives.
On the post: President Obama Hints At Asking Silicon Valley To Magically Block Terrorists From Using Tech Products
Re: Re: Re: Re: Denial
No - they are the ones that have prevented attacks using guns in the UK.
Note that in the UK the attackers have had to make do with knives - so fewer deaths.
France is part of Schengen - so French laws don't prevent gun leakage fromother countries where laws are laxer.
On the post: President Obama Hints At Asking Silicon Valley To Magically Block Terrorists From Using Tech Products
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Denial
I suppose I was really talking about the UK where both gun control and borders are stronger than in France.
On the post: President Obama Hints At Asking Silicon Valley To Magically Block Terrorists From Using Tech Products
Re: Re: Re: Re: Denial
European gun laws are generally stricter than the US - however as you point out - in the Schengen zone you effectively have the law of the laxest country everywhere. (Also true with states/ state borders in the US.
Your example of Switzerland is a bad one because:
1) Switzerland isn't even in the EU let alone Schengen.
2) Switzerland does have very high gun death rates relative to its overall crime level.
The UK on the other hand - where borders are more strongly policed and gun laws are the strictest anywhere - has a gun death rate 1/10th of Switzerland and 1/40th of the USA.
On the post: President Obama Hints At Asking Silicon Valley To Magically Block Terrorists From Using Tech Products
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: President Obama Hints At Asking Silicon Valley To Magically Block Terrorists From Using Tech Products
Re: Re: Denial
On the post: President Obama Hints At Asking Silicon Valley To Magically Block Terrorists From Using Tech Products
Re: Re: Denial
The USA has a range of gun control laws that range from lax to very lax by European standards. Calling the California laws "strict" looks like a joke from where I'm sitting.
Terrorists will still try to commit mass murder whatever you do but without legally available guns it will be harder for them - and they may have to resort to less effective (knives) or less reliable methods (bombs).
Why make it easy for them???
You are in denial.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: “GOD ISN’T FIXING THIS”
members of Congress got a total of $30.6 million from the NRA in 2014. And some commenters on this site, it seems, can see nothing wrong with that.
Yes and they say that banning guns won't stop terrorists - well that is a half truth which (like a half brick) is easier to throw than a whole lie.
The reality is that lack of legally available guns does reduce reduce the severity of terrorist attacks. In the UK where all automatic weapons and handguns are illegal, the terrorists have had to rely on knives (considerably less effective) and bombs (considerably less reliable).
Banning guns won't stop terorists - but it will reduce the number and severity of the casualties.
On the post: Former Bush Press Secretary Says The Answer To Mass Shootings Is... More Domestic Surveillance
Re: Re: Re:
Harder how?
In the UK (for example) these guns are not legally obtainable at all.
Any restrictions would have to apply to the rest of legal gun owners.
Yup but that is the price you pay.
That would work. We could also but mandatory breathalyzers in cars to cut drunk driving deaths.
Well the UK has the one - but not the other - you don't have to do both.
Like I said people in the US seem to be wilfully blind on this issue. To much of the rest of the world your arguments just look stupid.
On the post: Former Bush Press Secretary Says The Answer To Mass Shootings Is... More Domestic Surveillance
Re:
Gun control would probably help a bit - by making it harder to obtain weaponry - although the best argument for it is to reduce accidental shootings especialy involving children.
Most first world countries have stricter gun control than the US and have consequently fewer gun deaths - only the wilfully blind fail to see this.
However these people will use bombs if guns are unavailable.
In spite of what you say about the family in this case it is generally true that most perpetrators are already on the security services radar so a bigger haystack is the last thing we need.
On the post: Former Bush Press Secretary Says The Answer To Mass Shootings Is... More Domestic Surveillance
Re:
Thanks for letting us all know your password!
On the post: DEA Seized $262k From Sexting Extortioners And Now The Oldest Private College In West Virginia Wants Its Money Back
Re: Re:
Ah but I'm forgetting - they don't.
On the post: DEA Seized $262k From Sexting Extortioners And Now The Oldest Private College In West Virginia Wants Its Money Back
Re:
They are not the prosecution in a criminal case - therefore at worst they only have to get as far as "balance of probabbilities".
On that basis I'd say they have a slam dunk.
On the post: UK's Snooper's Charter Hands Over Access To User Data To Several Non-Law Enforcement Agencies
Re: Department for Work and Pensions
In that case they should have been happy to promote this type of thing as the purpose of the act instead of hiding it behind terrorism.
On the post: Saudi Arabia Says It Will Sue Twitter Users Who Compare It To ISIS; Apparently Skips The NY Times
Re:
Other Al-Jazeera polls are broken down by country and don't include Saudi so it may not be included in that one anyway. However I don't think you can dismiss such a poll quite so easily when it gives such a high percentage.
On the post: Saudi Arabia Says It Will Sue Twitter Users Who Compare It To ISIS; Apparently Skips The NY Times
Re:
On the post: L.A. Politician Proposes Bold Plan To Wreck Homes, Destroy Lives And Abuse License Plate Reader Technology
Re:
On the post: The Anonymous Assault On ISIS Is Hurting More Than It's Helping
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Causes of Daesh recruitment
Uriel is right.
No he isn't. The citing of western atrocities is propaganda - and you have fallen for it.
Read this http://www.faithfreedom.org/the-ideological-roots-of-radical-islam/
or maybe you'll believe V. S. Naipaul
http://www.faithfreedom.org/islamic-state-is-the-fourth-reich-the-most-potent-threat-to-civil ization-since-the-nazis/
People have been saying what you say for the last 15 years an it hasn't got us anywhere - in fact things have got worse.
Also it doesn't explain why most of their victims are actually local minorities. In fact they have barely done anything at all to the US.
On the post: The Anonymous Assault On ISIS Is Hurting More Than It's Helping
Re: Oppressed people don't rebel -- What?
Unfortunately the facts don't fit your theory. Of course you have to perceive a grievance BUT it is also necessary to perceive some chance of success.
Many people throughout the world and through history have had legitimate grievances but have not rebelled until they could see some chance of success. Good examples are the peoples of Greece, Bulgaria, Romania etc who suffered for centuries under the Ottomans but were not in a position to rebel successfully until the Ottomans had declined and Britain, France and Russia were in a position to help out.
But greater scholars than you
Nice combination of argument from authority and ad hominem. Two logical fallacies in one sentence - good work!
Next >>