shooting at quebec city mosque, 5 reported dead

[bozack]

No, only dumb lefties thought gun bans would stop this. And yes I said gun bans, thats what crazy lefties want. Just like how crazy righties want Muslim bans and LGBT bans and even if they wont say it now they also want asian bans, black bans, atheist bans, and infinite other bans.

as I said elsewhere with regards to liberal hypocrisy is that there is much anger around the supposed "ban" and how the lefties feel that the temporary hold violated the constitutional rights of Green Card holders or those on work visas, yet it seems when talking about gun control, which is a constitutional right "extreme vetting" with often lengthy waiting periods and exceptionally thorough background checks is perfectly acceptable to the folks who are bent about this.

for what its worth I am ok with vetting in both cases but feel that it wouldn't stop tragedies from happening.

 

[sdifox]

thought the lefties kept saying that strict gun control would stop this?

# of Guns per 100 Resident
USA - 112.6
Canada - 30.8
# of firearm related deaths per 100,000 population
USA - 10.54
Canada - 1.97

You draw your own conclusions.

 

[Victorian Gray]

wow, you got me.

Like I said, where are all of the pro gun control folks praising how well strict regulations worked to prevent this tragedy.....oh wait.

And before our very eyes the gigagigantic asshole grows even more gigagigantic. Cool trick bunky.

 

[norseamd]

as I said elsewhere with regards to liberal hypocrisy is that there is much anger around the supposed "ban" and how the lefties feel that the temporary hold violated the constitutional rights of Green Card holders or those on work visas, yet it seems when talking about gun control, which is a constitutional right "extreme vetting" with often lengthy waiting periods and exceptionally thorough background checks is perfectly acceptable to the folks who are bent about this.

for what its worth I am ok with vetting in both cases but feel that it wouldn't stop tragedies from happening.

Because it did violate their constitutional rights, and it also violated the constitution, even without considering those Muslims, who should be considered.

 

[norseamd]

# of Guns per 100 Resident
USA - 112.6
Canada - 30.8
# of firearm related deaths per 100,000 population
USA - 10.54
Canada - 1.97

You draw your own conclusions.

Firearm related deaths is one of the most meaningless statistics ever.

What is the rate of homicide deaths per 100,000 population?

 

[Ackmed]

The guy is caught now, hope for swift and harsh punishment for him.

# of Guns per 100 Resident
USA - 112.6
Canada - 30.8
# of firearm related deaths per 100,000 population
USA - 10.54
Canada - 1.97

You draw your own conclusions.

Things are rarely this cut and dry. Demographics play a pretty big part. Cities like Chiraq do as well with gangs. Don't be so naïve.

 

[sdifox]

as I said elsewhere with regards to liberal hypocrisy is that there is much anger around the supposed "ban" and how the lefties feel that the temporary hold violated the constitutional rights of Green Card holders or those on work visas, yet it seems when talking about gun control, which is a constitutional right "extreme vetting" with often lengthy waiting periods and exceptionally thorough background checks is perfectly acceptable to the folks who are bent about this.

for what its worth I am ok with vetting in both cases but feel that it wouldn't stop tragedies from happening.

Wait, the bakground check for gun buying takes over 14 years and 120k in attorney fees? Because that is what took for my high school buddy to get a green card.

 

[sdifox]

Firearm related deaths is one of the most meaningless statistics ever.

What is the rate of homicide deaths per 100,000 population?

Bozack wanted fast simple answers :shrug:

source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate


UNODC Intentional Homicide rate

per 100K
Canada 1.5
United States 3.9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[Blackjack200]

Well some basic searching has come up with quite a few articles that are potentially worth reading. Not promising any quality assurances for any of the articles.

https://pulsemedia.org/2016/10/28/sympathy-for-the-devil-exorcising-greenwald-and-assad/

http://quillette.com/2015/12/19/glenn-greenwald-fascisms-fellow-traveller/

https://notanetwork2015.wordpress.c...ist-support-of-russian-intervention-in-syria/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/a-tale-of-ukraine-crimea_b_5060692.html

http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/2016/06/27/your-revolution-is-just-not-as-cool-as-glenn-greenwalds/

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/15/12853236/glenn-greenwald-trump-clinton

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/27/russia-bombs-hospitals-lefties-shrug.html

#1 - This goes to Greenwald's criticisms of the Assad regime, and there's a whole bunch of "look at this, isn't it awful?!" without really making the case.
#2 - This is very long article that seems to be really angry that Greenwald called the Charlie Hebdo writers racist. I don't really have an opinion on that, I've heard people that I respect argue both ways.
#3 - I'm not sure what the author's point is in this one. It seems to me "but what about Russia" WRT Syria. Greenwald doesn't often criticize Russia because everyone else is already doing that. I've seen frequently seen Greenwald defend himself on this point, insisting that he's not defending Russia, and it seems to stand up. I mean, look at the Tweet that they're criticizing. Greenwald says "With Russia, Parliament is a given..." meaning that the Russian Parliament will do whatever Putin wants.
#4 - Criticism that Greenwald was soft pedaling criticism of Assad. I thought this piece was pretty thin.
#5 - Upset at Greenwald for criticizing Clinton's reliance on corporate money, tries to cast him as a hypocrite for his views on the Citizens United case. I watched the first few minutes of his debate with prof. Lessig and I don't agree he was being hypocritical.
#6 - I understand where Greenwald is coming from here. Leftists tend to get buried in partisan politics and accused of assisting the enemy if they don't fall in line. Again, I don't think there's anything here that makes him a cancer.
#7 - A really angry article about stuff that Glenn should have written about but didn't? I don't understand this. Again, it's accusing Glenn of soft pedaling his criticism of Russia and Syria. Which is fine, but it doesn't suggest any problem with Glenn's journalism. He's focused on criticism of the West. There is plenty of criticism of Russia out there too, and as long as Glenn is not supporting it, I don't see it as cancerous.

 

[norseamd]

Bozack wanted fast simple answers :shrug:

source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate


UNODC Intentional Homicide rate

per 100K
Canada 1.5
United States 3.9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Ok.

My criticism of firearms related death statistics is that its irrelevant because if guns are banned then you can drag out knife related death statistics, bow related death statistics, poison related death statistics, and so on.

Firearms are a tool, weapons are tools for implementing force, they are not the violence themselves. Without guns one simply has to start looking for another tool to implement violence, and humans like many other animals are naturally made as tools for implementing force themselves, even with reduced canines and claws.

 

[Jaskalas]

So the Rs will ban whole countries based on vague notions of terrorism...

yet a white wing troll murders Muslims suddenly they become lawyers debating the nuances of definitions, and arm chair phycologists diagnosing mental illness.

Yup. Alternative facts.

Because this lone wolf and other such incidents compare to Al Qaeda, or ISIS? A terrorist group that defeated the Iraqi military and took control of Mosul, where they then proceeded to genocide the locals? A handful of dead in sparse acts like these compares to the tens of thousands tortured to death and near-loss of entire nations? The meat grinder over seas continues daily, on a large scale.

Yes, arguing the definition... as there's probably no direct support, participation, logistics, financial, planning... NOTHING to physically or conceptually tie A SINGLE OTHER PERSON to this attack. Who helped him? Who knew of the attack? No one?

Now... are lone wolves terrorists? Are they still part of a largely loosely collected group? That's the crux of a debate I'd like to have. Something to weigh and consider. Something for us to discuss, that is if you weren't too busy trying to pigeon us.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Because this lone wolf and other such incidents compare to Al Qaeda, or ISIS? A terrorist group that defeated the Iraqi military and took control of Mosul, where they then proceeded to genocide the locals? A handful of dead in sparse acts like these compares to the tens of thousands tortured to death and near-loss of entire nations? The meat grinder over seas continues daily, on a large scale.

Yes, arguing the definition... as there's probably no direct support, participation, logistics, financial, planning... NOTHING to physically or conceptually tie A SINGLE OTHER PERSON to this attack. Who helped him? Who knew of the attack? No one?

Now... are lone wolves terrorists? Are they still part of a largely loosely collected group? That's the crux of a debate I'd like to have. Something to weigh and consider. Something for us to discuss, that is if you weren't too busy trying to pigeon us.

Do you consider the Orlando nightclub shooter a terrorist? The couple that shot up San Bernardino? Pretty sure that a lot of people on this forum did.

 

[Jaskalas]

San Bernardino involved more than one person. Which immediately raises the stakes from lone wolf / crazy person.
The wife, from Pakistan, had ties to Pakistan's infamous Red Mosque. There is nothing indirect about their terrorist link.
They were at the heart of the definition, having been in physical contact with terrorist organizations.

Orlando is interesting. Clear signs of mental illness, more of a lone wolf... yet made two pilgrimages overseas in recent years.
Though he had some opportunity, we have no evidence he was successful in making contact or supported by any group.
He took very heavily to the personification of Islamic Terrorism, but it was perhaps more symbolic than practical or physical.

This subject raises questions. Can terrorism be a lone wolf activity?
Or... without outside support, is it more of a individual hate crime?
Anyone can claim they are ISIS... that does not mean they were physically supported by them. Or even had contact.
Should we count them as terrorism / ISIS just because they want that recognition?

Maybe it's better to classify these events as hate crimes until we find clear indications of terror organization involvement.
Might help diminish their appeal in the eyes of the public, and distraught individuals in particular.
Maybe we make it more... glamorous by giving it an association greater than it actually is.

If we find an agreeable way to be consistent, it may help us discuss these things, or even combat their occurrence.

 

[sdifox]

San Bernardino involved more than one person. Which immediately raises the stakes from lone wolf / crazy person.
The wife, from Pakistan, had ties to Pakistan's infamous Red Mosque. There is nothing indirect about their terrorist link.
They were at the heart of the definition, having been in physical contact with terrorist organizations.

Orlando is interesting. Clear signs of mental illness, more of a lone wolf... yet made two pilgrimages overseas in recent years.
Though he had some opportunity, we have no evidence he was successful in making contact or supported by any group.
He took very heavily to the personification of Islamic Terrorism, but it was perhaps more symbolic than practical or physical.

This subject raises questions. Can terrorism be a lone wolf activity?
Or... without outside support, is it more of a individual hate crime?
Anyone can claim they are ISIS... that does not mean they were physically supported by them. Or even had contact.
Should we count them as terrorism / ISIS just because they want that recognition?

Maybe it's better to classify these events as hate crimes until we find clear indications of terror organization involvement.
Might help diminish their appeal in the eyes of the public, and distraught individuals in particular.
Maybe we make it more... glamorous by giving it an association greater than it actually is.

If we find an agreeable way to be consistent, it may help us discuss these things, or even combat their occurrence.

I am of the same mindset as you. But everyone seem to be in a rush to sensetionalise everything. I guess that is what happens when no one buys newspaper anymore.

 

[jackstar7]

The guy is caught now, hope for swift and harsh punishment for him.

Things are rarely this cut and dry. Demographics play a pretty big part. Cities like Chiraq do as well with gangs. Don't be so naïve.

Oh, did you see that movie? What did you think of it?

 

[norseamd]

I am of the same mindset as you. But everyone seem to be in a rush to sensetionalise everything. I guess that is what happens when no one buys newspaper anymore.

Its not sensationalizing. The word terrorism was sensationalized the day that 9-11 happened. That isnt disparaing 9-11 as some small insignificant incident, thats just saying that often human nature is to sensationalize something beyond all limits.

At this point your definition is no better than the ones that some of us consider to be terrorism.

Like I said earlier, if we are to go down this road, then only incidents that are designed to provoke fear and terror are then terrorism. That is the real actual book definition of terrorism. And then much of what has happened would not be considered terrorism, while many things people dont think much of would be considered terrorism, like filmed executions, false threats, and even simple acts like hanging up posters and banners. Remember Jihadi John? Remember that Jordanian Pilot being burned alive in that cage? By many definitions, and it seems probably yours, those would not be considered terrorism, but by the real meaning of terrorism they are pure blown out full terrorism, purposely and specifically designed to instill fear in everyone around the world.

Often I am content to call acts of mass violence as terrorism, but if you want to make terrorism as only used according to its real definition than maybe I might be willing to accept that, but only as long as you also follow that same definition.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Montreal

U of T

Quebec City

Halifax

Parliament Hill

Dalhousie University

Calgary

Whitehorse

 

[MrSquished]

Montreal

U of T

Quebec City

Halifax

Parliament Hill

Dalhousie University

Calgary

Whitehorse

Beautiful images

 

[Victorian Gray]

Beautiful images

The one that really got to me was the one in Whitehorse. Up in the Yukon they're so far away and yet, not so much when it really counts.

 

[Victorian Gray]

more pictures from around the country

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canadi...-for-quebec-mosque-shooting-victims-1.3959149

 

[werepossum]

There's an issue to argue over delineation. What constitutes terrorism? Group organization, active participation, logistical, financial support, planning, ideology, inspiration? Casual association (same office, same school, same place of worship?) Or just named by the suspect as a simple excuse? I'd say terrorism requires a serious crime, a political goal, and a level of organization. Although that last point might rule out lone wolves. But if not for organization, what separates terrorism from any old hate crime?

I would argue that this is terrorism because, like the San Beradino or Chattanooga or South Carolina mass murders, the shooter had a definite political goal, whether that be enacting political change, sparking a race war, or simply terrorizing a particular group into hopefully changing behavior. That places these people a step below even senseless mass murderers such as school massacre murderers or the DC snipers who simply want to murder. The organization might be only the Internet, which any mentally ill person can use to justify any point of view. Sure, this requires mental illness, but anyone who murders people he doesn't even know is severely broken even if a member of a group that nurtures the evil beliefs and intentions.

To me, hate crimes don't really have a purpose except in sentencing and in things which aren't crimes (or at least, not so serious) unless done to a particular person or for a particular cause.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok.

My criticism of firearms related death statistics is that its irrelevant because if guns are banned then you can drag out knife related death statistics, bow related death statistics, poison related death statistics, and so on.

Firearms are a tool, weapons are tools for implementing force, they are not the violence themselves. Without guns one simply has to start looking for another tool to implement violence, and humans like many other animals are naturally made as tools for implementing force themselves, even with reduced canines and claws.

The Onion has this line of reasoning covered:

You Take Away Guns, And Someone’s Just Gonna Invent, Manufacture, And Use A High-Powered Knife Launcher

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/you-take-away-guns-and-someones-just-gonna-invent--51477

 

[sdifox]

Its not sensationalizing. The word terrorism was sensationalized the day that 9-11 happened. That isnt disparaing 9-11 as some small insignificant incident, thats just saying that often human nature is to sensationalize something beyond all limits.

At this point your definition is no better than the ones that some of us consider to be terrorism.

Like I said earlier, if we are to go down this road, then only incidents that are designed to provoke fear and terror are then terrorism. That is the real actual book definition of terrorism. And then much of what has happened would not be considered terrorism, while many things people dont think much of would be considered terrorism, like filmed executions, false threats, and even simple acts like hanging up posters and banners. Remember Jihadi John? Remember that Jordanian Pilot being burned alive in that cage? By many definitions, and it seems probably yours, those would not be considered terrorism, but by the real meaning of terrorism they are pure blown out full terrorism, purposely and specifically designed to instill fear in everyone around the world.

Often I am content to call acts of mass violence as terrorism, but if you want to make terrorism as only used according to its real definition than maybe I might be willing to accept that, but only as long as you also follow that same definition.

I am. And I think the terrorists are winning given the last week of executive orders. Their main objective is to change our way of life and Trump is playing along like a dumb mutt.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Bozack wanted fast simple answers :shrug:

source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate


UNODC Intentional Homicide rate

per 100K
Canada 1.5
United States 3.9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

That's really useless it turns out. In the US the data it is incidents reported. In England it is conviction, at least as far as handgun crime. In other words Chicago has a very low rate when measured by one standard and high by the other. When underlying data collection and reporting methods are at wild variance any conclusions are meaningless.

 

[fskimospy]

That's really useless it turns out. In the US the data it is incidents reported. In England it is conviction, at least as far as handgun crime. In other words Chicago has a very low rate when measured by one standard and high by the other. When underlying data collection and reporting methods are at wild variance any conclusions are meaningless.

There is a very simple and short answer though, which is that the overwhelming majority of research shows that gun ownership increases your odds of being the victim of homicide and suicide.

Shockingly enough, being constantly in close proximity to an instrument that was created for the purpose of killing people makes it more likely you will be killed. It's kind of common sense.