'Van hits pedestrians' on London Bridge in 'major incident'

[actaeon277]

Statistically invalid conclusion, sir. Yes, the incident influenced the internment decision, but it was a poor decision, if you ask me.

I agree it was a bad decision.
But, I wouldn't be against increased surveillance of groups of people that we at war with their "homeland".

Also, I realize I am making that statement in the comfort of my home, not beginning a major world war, which influences my thinking.

 

[Route 45]

UK police arrest two more men over Manchester attack | Reuters

21 total arrested. Nine still in custody.

Huh. Lots of lone wolves out there.

 

[printcraft]

Huh. Lots of lone wolves out there.

Lone wolf packs.
Soon to be lone wolf hordes.

 

[Alpo]

Lone wolf pack....that's an oxymoron.

 

[BugI02]

Why didn't we lock up thousands of Germans or Italians? Did we somehow have practical knowledge to differentiate between the loyal ones and the questionable ones in those groups?

Or did we not mess with them because the look like us, practice the same religions as us, you know, they looked like "good" Muricans.

At a guess (since I never interviewed FDR) I would say it was because Germany and Italy had not just made a cowardly sneak attack on any US military installations, and a possible attack by them on the US mainland was not thought to be imminent

Given your intimated view that we only interred Japanese-Americans because they weren't like us, do you also subscribe to the belief that we only nuked Japan for similar reasons and would not have used nuclear weapons on 'white folk'?

 

[actaeon277]

Lone wolf pack....that's an oxymoron.

So is "21" and "lone wolves"

 

[printcraft]

Lone wolf pack....that's an oxymoron.

I agree, there MUST be a better term...... What if we just take the "lone" part away?
Or is that phobic?

Crazy wolf pack?

 

[Alpo]

Most of the time, my descriptors for them begin with an F and end with "head"

 

[HoughMade]

Lone wolf pack....that's an oxymoron.

Lone wolf pack a/k/a libertarians.

 

[Alpo]

I thought they were called a "gaggle"?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I thought they were called a "gaggle"?

No, I think it's called a Paul of libertarians.

 

[tv1217]

Most of the time, my descriptors for them begin with an F and end with "head"

Foodoohead?!

 

[Alpo]

Yes...but you have to include a used cloth in there somewhere....

 

[ArcadiaGP]

All 48 London Bridge attack victims who made it to hospital survive - Business Insider

 

[ghuns]

More and more people have reached their limit with [STRIKE]terrorism[/STRIKE] gun violence. They don't want politicians to minimize it, to say it is the new normal, that it is simply the price we must pay for [STRIKE]multiculturalism[/STRIKE] the right to keep and bear arms.

We know the price we pay for the right to keep and bear arms. It is easily quantifiable by counting the dead bodies every year. We, around here anyways, accept that. Many do not.

We mock and ridicule them. Call them sheep, and much worse. Threads get closed, INGO members get banned for saying what they think should be done about those who'd dare infringe upon their precious rights. To then turn around and call for the rights of others to be diminished is blatant hypocrisy.

Those who act like savages and/or support savages should be treated as savages. A corner has been turned.

The corner that has been turned, at least the one in recent threads around here, is the one that says simply being a member of the same religion as those savages makes you a savage.

It's the same corner some gun control advocates have turned who think you and me are the savages.

There have been around 300K firearms related deaths in the US in the last decade. There have been less than a hundred deaths from incidents of Islamic terrorism in the US in the last decade. Who has the better case?

 

[jamil]

No, I think it's called a Paul of libertarians.

Just catching up with this thread.

I lol'd. Couldn't rep you.

 

[BugI02]

We know the price we pay for the right to keep and bear arms. It is easily quantifiable by counting the dead bodies every year. We, around here anyways, accept that. Many do not.

We mock and ridicule them. Call them sheep, and much worse. Threads get closed, INGO members get banned for saying what they think should be done about those who'd dare infringe upon their precious rights. To then turn around and call for the rights of others to be diminished is blatant hypocrisy.



The corner that has been turned, at least the one in recent threads around here, is the one that says simply being a member of the same religion as those savages makes you a savage.

It's the same corner some gun control advocates have turned who think you and me are the savages.

There have been around 300K firearms related deaths in the US in the last decade. There have been less than a hundred deaths from incidents of Islamic terrorism in the US in the last decade. Who has the better case?

It is a threat that we feel is harder to control because of its randomness. The structural threats to our families and us shares some similarities that we can use to minimize or prepare for the threat. Certain parts of town or situations that we avoid; not because we are not armed and trained, but because the likelihood we might have to use our weapons and training is higher and there exist alternatives. And it varies within that framework; there are situations I would take myself into (if I had good reason) where I would never allow my wife to accompany me. The important take away is that I feel I understand the nature of the threat and to some extent can control the risk

With Islamic murderers, I do not feel I can spot the parameters that influence the risk to my family and I. I'm sure the people in San Bernardino did not think attending their office Christmas party was a risky behavior, other than possibly to their driving record if they over-imbibed. I'm sure the kid's at Ohio State that were run over or stabbed didn't think going to their next class was a risky decision

What those of us you are attempting to chide are seeking is a method to mitigate the risk, to do something rather than just sit and take it. We clearly see that the unfettered immigration from the ME that the EU has allowed has directly contributed to their problems, even they are now beginning to blame the failure of the immigrant populations from these areas to assimilate. They perhaps need to go a step further and realize many did not want to assimilate, they just wanted a job or a handout; not to become French or British except where it said so on their passport. And in turn, this desire to remain a kernel of 'other' within the borders of an EU country further erodes their ability to assimilate even if they have the desire

We see many in politics wishing to import more of this problem to the US, for no articulable good reason other than, essentially, it makes them feel good - it strokes their self-righteousness. These people have no right to come here and are often military aged men with few skills that will be difficult to place in jobs once they get here, thus replicating the cycle of men who want to live outside the mainstream but feel resentful because their countrymen treat them as outsiders. This will set the stage for the same poison fruit ripening all over Europe, and many people will not tolerate that here and thus are against not only any further immigration from the most jihadi-infested parts of the world, but also against more immigration by people who have no desire to truly become American.

You are quite good at pointing out what you think we should not do. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us with what you think we should do, unless you just think it isn't/doesn't rise to the level of a problem. Perhap's you and your family don't walk down busy thoroughfares or dine out and so think you have no risk. Perhaps you live in small town Indiana and think such attacks will never come there.

When you compare the risks numerically you are being somewhat disingenuous; many other incidents have caused some random casualties such as pipeline explosions or train derailments but we always harden the rules after each one to attempt to further mitigate the risk. Double-hulled railway cars mandated for hauling volatile cargo, for instance. You seemingly advocate an approach that says "Well, that Bakken Crude train derailment and explosion in your town didn't kill very many people, so even though there are things we could do, we're not going to" How many people need to die randomly before its rises to the level of a 'problem'?

You are also disingenuous in the manner that you bring in 2A concerns, you mention the 300000 firearms related deaths (leaving out that 2/3 of those are self-inflicted deaths) but fail to account for the fact that criminals were threatening us with guns and killing us with guns long before the push-back coalesced around expanded 2A rights for everybody as a potential solution/mitigation of the problem. Had the use of a gun in a crime resulted in swift and certain very harsh punishment, that the offender would certainly serve all of, it might have acted as a real deterrent. A functioning, real deterrent might have put downward pressure on the 'problem' and if people saw that solution functioning and making headway you might have had less broad support for the liberalization of gun restrictions that have taken place

I seek the ability to tackle the jihadi problem before it becomes much of a problem. If the nature and structure of an intersection is such that it causes an excess of accidents and deaths, we redesign the intersection. If the nature of a religion is such that it causes an excess of murders and attempted murders, can we do any less?

Large parts of Islam seem a political fifth-column masquerading as a religion, a slow motion invasion but an invasion nevertheless. If our current constitutional rights problems with 'liberals' were caused by immigrants who were members of an established "church of Communism/Socialism", would you feel inclined too give them a 1A pass? Would you import more of them?

 

[Brad69]

I see we have made it to step 6 of the attack response.

6. Do nothing and wait for next attack!

 

[ghuns]

What those of us you are attempting to chide are seeking is a method to mitigate the risk, to do something rather than just sit and take it.

Do you not think that your average gun grabber is trying to do the same thing when they cry for an assault weapons ban or to close the dreaded "gun show loophole"?

I am all for mitigating risks. But the nature of living in a free society is that some will abuse that freedom. Use it to do harm. Any mitigation must be done in a way doesn't end with us losing what makes this country special.

We see many in politics wishing to import more of this problem to the US, for no articulable good reason other than, essentially, it makes them feel good - it strokes their self-righteousness. These people have no right to come here and are often military aged men with few skills that will be difficult to place in jobs once they get here, thus replicating the cycle of men who want to live outside the mainstream but feel resentful because their countrymen treat them as outsiders. This will set the stage for the same poison fruit ripening all over Europe, and many people will not tolerate that here and thus are against not only any further immigration from the most jihadi-infested parts of the world, but also against more immigration by people who have no desire to truly become American.

I am not one of those people. Military aged men from jihadi-infested places should be staying home and fighting for their homeland. If it's not worth it to them to fight against the radicals, it's certainly not worth sending our soldiers to do it.

No one should be coming to this country, from anywhere, who is not thoroughly vetted. Which of course I trust our .gov to eFF up like most things it does. So if a travel ban, an immigration ban helps you sleep better at night, fine.

What I object to is the characterization of the US citizen-Muslim population as a threat so grave that their rights are less valid than yours or mine.

You are also disingenuous in the manner that you bring in 2A concerns, you mention the 300000 firearms related deaths (leaving out that 2/3 of those are self-inflicted deaths)...

My bad, it's 100,000 vs 100, not 300,000 vs 100.

If the nature and structure of an intersection is such that it causes an excess of accidents and deaths, we redesign the intersection. If the nature of a religion is such that it causes an excess of murders and attempted murders, can we do any less?

So the nature of Islam causes an excess of murders and attempted murders? It represents 25% of the population of earth, over three million in this country. Why aren't the rivers and oceans red with blood?

Maybe Islam is flawed at it's core. Maybe Mohammed was a pedophile, mass murdering, goat humper. But billions of people all over the world practice it in way that brings no harm to anyone. Millions here in this country love being an American as much as you and I do. To pronounce to ALL of them that you are here to "redesign" their religion is the most arrogant thing I've heard in quite a while.

 

[Denny347]

What those of us you are attempting to chide are seeking is a method to mitigate the risk, to do something rather than just sit and take it. We clearly see that the unfettered immigration from the ME that the EU has allowed has directly contributed to their problems, even they are now beginning to blame the failure of the immigrant populations from these areas to assimilate. They perhaps need to go a step further and realize many did not want to assimilate, they just wanted a job or a handout; not to become French or British except where it said so on their passport. And in turn, this desire to remain a kernel of 'other' within the borders of an EU country further erodes their ability to assimilate even if they have the desire

Lots of assumptions here about what immigrants want to do. We have any numbers on this? Or studies? Or polls?

We see many in politics wishing to import more of this problem to the US, for no articulable good reason other than, essentially, it makes them feel good - it strokes their self-righteousness. These people have no right to come here and are often military aged men with few skills that will be difficult to place in jobs once they get here, thus replicating the cycle of men who want to live outside the mainstream but feel resentful because their countrymen treat them as outsiders. This will set the stage for the same poison fruit ripening all over Europe, and many people will not tolerate that here and thus are against not only any further immigration from the most jihadi-infested parts of the world, but also against more immigration by people who have no desire to truly become American.

Why have we EVER let refugees in the US? We don't have to but we do it for humanitarian reasons. Where are you coming up with the "often military aged men" 3/4 of the Syrian Refugees (that's who we are talking about) are women and children. a full 1/3 of the refugees are under the age 13. Most Syrian refugees are women and children, as Keith Ellison said | PolitiFact

You are quite good at pointing out what you think we should not do. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us with what you think we should do, unless you just think it isn't/doesn't rise to the level of a problem. Perhap's you and your family don't walk down busy thoroughfares or dine out and so think you have no risk. Perhaps you live in small town Indiana and think such attacks will never come there.

What we SHOULD do is what we had ALREADY been doing.
Things to know: Refugee processing and background checks for Syrian refugees head to the US | Fox News
How the Refugee Vetting Process Works | The Heritage Foundation
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0

I have not seen any proof that what we've been doing wasn't working.

I seek the ability to tackle the jihadi problem before it becomes much of a problem. If the nature and structure of an intersection is such that it causes an excess of accidents and deaths, we redesign the intersection. If the nature of a religion is such that it causes an excess of murders and attempted murders, can we do any less?

Ah, pre-crime. What do you propose to do with the 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world, or the 3.3 Million already in the US?