Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Right, from where?  Those were specific numbers so they must have specific sources.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-islam-views-survey-idUSBRE93T0TK20130430

http://www.allenbwest.com/michellejesse/yikes-what-a-majority-of-muslim-americans-believe-proves-ben-carson-was-right

9 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Seems more reasonable, a carbine makes more sense in a crowd. It's actually the picture that was posted earlier.

 

This is the military version with full auto fire, this cannot be purchased by civilians in gun stores. Only the semi-auto is available and given some of the guns standard features (folding barrel) cannot be purchased in a few states, including NY.  

[Lihu]

11 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-islam-views-survey-idUSBRE93T0TK20130430

http://www.allenbwest.com/michellejesse/yikes-what-a-majority-of-muslim-americans-believe-proves-ben-carson-was-right

This is the military version with full auto fire, this cannot be purchased by civilians in gun stores. Only the semi-auto is available and given some of the guns standard features (folding barrel) cannot be purchased in a few states, including NY.  

The trigger group is AR-15, so semi and full auto is likely conversion kit ready.

Here's something on barrel heat.

 

[drmevo]

14 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-islam-views-survey-idUSBRE93T0TK20130430

http://www.allenbwest.com/michellejesse/yikes-what-a-majority-of-muslim-americans-believe-proves-ben-carson-was-right

This is the military version with full auto fire, this cannot be purchased by civilians in gun stores. Only the semi-auto is available and given some of the guns standard features (folding barrel) cannot be purchased in a few states, including NY.  

The first article is good, but doesn't backup the numbers you cited, especially for the U.S.  Plus it points out that Sharia means very different things to different people.

The second article, I can't take seriously.  Not even a little.

[natureboy]

41 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I don't know how we could predict that a person is a potential perpetrator?

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I knew someone would post this!

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

I knew someone would post this!

Not sure this is the right thread for smilies. My post was not really intended to be humorous. Sci-Fi often is a medium for contemplation of serious issues.

 

@drmevo & re the general thread. Thoughts with many caveats:

The issues of potentially violent cranks or sleepers is not easy to solve. Religious tolerance is a cornerstone of the constitution so I don't think we should exclude or legally target people because of a chosen faith. One would think that someone coming to the U.S. understands that mutual religious tolerance is a foundation of the constitution and if they are working toward citizenship they can accept that. But anyone can lie in a Visa application.

I respect people of Muslim faith who come to the U.S. for a better life and have shifted their worldview of Koranic 'jihad' to a symbolic, internal one instead of the essentially literal tribal / sectarian struggle that it still seems to embody for more than a few worldwide. There are also some Christian fundamentalists in this country who get very bent out of shape that not all people are convinced of the literal truth of the bible, but I don't paint all Christians with a broad brush. Literal interpretation of all parts of the Bible would look very different from our current society too (not to mention be self-contradicting in parts).

Xenophobic fear, hate, and aggression is part of the potential dark side of every human society going back to the primate tribe / band roots. That said I have concern (but not paranoic fear) that there exist cultural strains of Islamic fundamentalism / Koranic interpretation that are not very compatible with American civil society.

I personally think Burqas are not compatible with American freedom of movement where personal identity and recognition is inherently important. Cultures emphasizing the Burqa tend to make women 2nd class citizens and require that they be accompanied by a male everywhere who is 'responsible' for them. I suppose if you wear a Burqa in America and you are not accompanied by a male, then you aren't really adhering to your strict fundamentalist rules anyway. There aren't many Burqas in Indonesia BTW, because women have a traditionally stronger role in that culture where Islam is still quite prevalent. Multiple sects in the Middle East can't even agree on whose Sharia is more correct so it's pretty much a non-issue to actually happen in America no matter how many convert to Islam.

Also leaders of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood have explicitly stated they 'don't believe in democracy' and when they won elections in Egypt proceeded to try to eliminate institutional elements of civil society as quick as they could. Not even much of a 'let's see if we can make pluralism work' waiting period to earn trust. That particular conflict has some thorny political and economic class issues wrapped up in a religious banner. I don't think all Muslims think like the Muslim Brotherhood, but as a strain of thought prevalent in some cultures or groups from certain countries it's definitely worth being aware of.

America once went through an ugly period of anti-Catholic / anti-immigrant nativism that I would not like to see us repeat. I guess my point is that not all Islam is the same. Not all Muslims are the same. Don't demonize rational, tolerant, civic-minded, potentially good citizens just because of a very generic religious label.

Really that's just feeding into the extremists' preferred dialectic.

But avoiding blanket xenophobia does not require throwing the exercise of judicious caution or speaking about real social / cultural tensions out the window.

Edited June 14, 2016 by natureboy

[drmevo]

Good post @natureboy and I think I agree with everything you said. Were you responding to anything I said in particular?

[Ernest Jones]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Not sure this is the right thread for smilies. My post was not really intended to be humorous. Sci-Fi often is a medium for contemplation of serious issues.

 

@drmevo & re the general thread. Thoughts with many caveats:

The issues of potentially violent cranks or sleepers is not easy to solve. Religious tolerance is a cornerstone of the constitution so I don't think we should exclude or legally target people because of a chosen faith. One would think that someone coming to the U.S. understands that mutual religious tolerance is a foundation of the constitution and if they are working toward citizenship they can accept that. But anyone can lie in a Visa application.

I respect people of Muslim faith who come to the U.S. for a better life and have shifted their worldview of Koranic 'jihad' to a symbolic, internal one instead of the essentially literal tribal / sectarian struggle that it still seems to embody for more than a few worldwide. There are also some Christian fundamentalists in this country who get very bent out of shape that not all people are convinced of the literal truth of the bible, but I don't paint all Christians with a broad brush. Literal interpretation of all parts of the Bible would look very different from our current society too (not to mention be self-contradicting in parts).

Xenophobic fear, hate, and aggression is part of the potential dark side of every human society going back to the primate tribe / band roots. That said I have concern (but not paranoic fear) that there exist cultural strains of Islamic fundamentalism / Koranic interpretation that are not very compatible with American civil society.

I personally think Burqas are not compatible with American freedom of movement where personal identity and recognition is inherently important. Cultures emphasizing the Burqa tend to make women 2nd class citizens and require that they be accompanied by a male everywhere who is 'responsible' for them. I suppose if you wear a Burqa in America and you are not accompanied by a male, then you aren't really adhering to your strict fundamentalist rules anyway. There aren't many Burqas in Indonesia BTW, because women have a traditionally stronger role in that culture where Islam is still quite prevalent. Multiple sects in the Middle East can't even agree on whose Sharia is more correct so it's pretty much a non-issue to actually happen in America no matter how many convert to Islam.

Also leaders of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood have explicitly stated they 'don't believe in democracy' and when they won elections in Egypt proceeded to try to eliminate institutional elements of civil society as quick as they could. Not even much of a 'let's see if we can make pluralism work' waiting period to earn trust. That particular conflict has some thorny political and economic class issues wrapped up in a religious banner. I don't think all Muslims think like the Muslim Brotherhood, but as a strain of thought prevalent in some cultures or groups from certain countries it's definitely worth being aware of.

America once went through an ugly period of anti-Catholic / anti-immigrant nativism that I would not like to see us repeat. I guess my point is that not all Islam is the same. Not all Muslims are the same. Don't demonize rational, tolerant, civic-minded, potentially good citizens just because of a very generic religious label.

Really that's just feeding into the extremists' preferred dialectic.

But avoiding blanket xenophobia does not require throwing the exercise of judicious caution or speaking about real social / cultural tensions out the window.

Very good post. Kudos on striking such a delicate balance on a polarizing subject. 

[Lihu]

6 hours ago, natureboy said:

Not sure this is the right thread for smilies. My post was not really intended to be humorous. Sci-Fi often is a medium for contemplation of serious issues.

I seem to have overestimated your sense of reality, sorry for that. I did not know you were serious about what you posted. Well, the first amendment guarantees your beliefs.

 

Quote

@drmevo & re the general thread. Thoughts with many caveats:

The issues of potentially violent cranks or sleepers is not easy to solve. Religious tolerance is a cornerstone of the constitution so I don't think we should exclude or legally target people because of a chosen faith. One would think that someone coming to the U.S. understands that mutual religious tolerance is a foundation of the constitution and if they are working toward citizenship they can accept that. But anyone can lie in a Visa application.

No we can't. Not until someone commits a crime.

Keep in mind that there are millions of Muslims living peacefully within our borders.

 

Quote

I respect people of Muslim faith who come to the U.S. for a better life and have shifted their worldview of Koranic 'jihad' to a symbolic, internal one instead of the essentially literal tribal / sectarian struggle that it still seems to embody for more than a few worldwide. There are also some Christian fundamentalists in this country who get very bent out of shape that not all people are convinced of the literal truth of the bible, but I don't paint all Christians with a broad brush. Literal interpretation of all parts of the Bible would look very different from our current society too (not to mention be self-contradicting in parts).

Based upon what you wrote, you don't seem to respect Muslims nor Christians at all.

 

Quote

Xenophobic fear, hate, and aggression is part of the potential dark side of every human society going back to the primate tribe / band roots. That said I have concern (but not paranoic fear) that there exist cultural strains of Islamic fundamentalism / Koranic interpretation that are not very compatible with American civil society.

Xenophobia has nothing to do with it, but in our modern society we need to abide by the laws we make. If the only "evidence" we have of potential for a threat is "speculation" then we have no case. We can't act upon anything without potentially violating the rights of innocent people.

You can stop people from going through our borders until you can establish their motives for travel, but you can't go rummaging for evidence to somehow incriminate them because they believe in something that past perpetrators did. You don't know that they believe exactly the same thing.

 

Quote

I personally think Burqas are not compatible with American freedom of movement where personal identity and recognition is inherently important. Cultures emphasizing the Burqa tend to make women 2nd class citizens and require that they be accompanied by a male everywhere who is 'responsible' for them. I suppose if you wear a Burqa in America and you are not accompanied by a male, then you aren't really adhering to your strict fundamentalist rules anyway. There aren't many Burqas in Indonesia BTW, because women have a traditionally stronger role in that culture where Islam is still quite prevalent. Multiple sects in the Middle East can't even agree on whose Sharia is more correct so it's pretty much a non-issue to actually happen in America no matter how many convert to Islam.

The issue is not so much what people wear or what they believe, it's what they do that matters. If they break our laws practicing their religion we can arrest them.

The only people who care are people who have a distaste for other cultures or religions.

 

Quote

Also leaders of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood have explicitly stated they 'don't believe in democracy' and when they won elections in Egypt proceeded to try to eliminate institutional elements of civil society as quick as they could. Not even much of a 'let's see if we can make pluralism work' waiting period to earn trust. That particular conflict has some thorny political and economic class issues wrapped up in a religious banner. I don't think all Muslims think like the Muslim Brotherhood, but as a strain of thought prevalent in some cultures or groups from certain countries it's definitely worth being aware of.

Okay, so the Taliban did the same thing in their country. Their countries were not founded upon personal freedom like the United States.

 

Quote

America once went through an ugly period of anti-Catholic / anti-immigrant nativism that I would not like to see us repeat. I guess my point is that not all Islam is the same. Not all Muslims are the same. Don't demonize rational, tolerant, civic-minded, potentially good citizens just because of a very generic religious label.

Really that's just feeding into the extremists' preferred dialectic.

Not likely to repeat this. We are constantly reminded of our failings as a society to appease everyone. If something like you suggest were to happen there would likely be open war on our streets.

Muslims are not criminals, and they should not be treated as such.

Christians are not criminals either. People who commit acts of violence might have been Christian at one point in time, but at the point where they are willing to take a life for their own interpretation of Christianity they cease to be truly Christian.

 

Quote

But avoiding blanket xenophobia does not require throwing the exercise of judicious caution or speaking about real social / cultural tensions out the window.

You can't persecute people based upon their beliefs. That's the law.

We can't stop someone from believing anything no matter what. If someone does something illegal for the sake of their religion, that's where we can draw the line.

The only thing we can legally do is to enforce laws based upon their actions. That's about it. Unless, you don't believe in our constitution, the bill of rights gives everyone the right to express their beliefs as long as it does not oppress another person's.

[nevets88]

 

[Ernest Jones]

4 hours ago, Lihu said:

I seem to have overestimated your sense of reality, sorry for that. I did not know you were serious about what you posted. Well, the first amendment guarantees your beliefs.

 

No we can't. Not until someone commits a crime.

Keep in mind that there are millions of Muslims living peacefully within our borders.

 

Based upon what you wrote, you don't seem to respect Muslims nor Christians at all.

 

Xenophobia has nothing to do with it, but in our modern society we need to abide by the laws we make. If the only "evidence" we have of potential for a threat is "speculation" then we have no case. We can't act upon anything without potentially violating the rights of innocent people.

You can stop people from going through our borders until you can establish their motives for travel, but you can't go rummaging for evidence to somehow incriminate them because they believe in something that past perpetrators did. You don't know that they believe exactly the same thing.

 

The issue is not so much what people wear or what they believe, it's what they do that matters. If they break our laws practicing their religion we can arrest them.

The only people who care are people who have a distaste for other cultures or religions.

 

Okay, so the Taliban did the same thing in their country. Their countries were not founded upon personal freedom like the United States.

 

Not likely to repeat this. We are constantly reminded of our failings as a society to appease everyone. If something like you suggest were to happen there would likely be open war on our streets.

Muslims are not criminals, and they should not be treated as such.

Christians are not criminals either. People who commit acts of violence might have been Christian at one point in time, but at the point where they are willing to take a life for their own interpretation of Christianity they cease to be truly Christian.

 

You can't persecute people based upon their beliefs. That's the law.

We can't stop someone from believing anything no matter what. If someone does something illegal for the sake of their religion, that's where we can draw the line.

The only thing we can legally do is to enforce laws based upon their actions. That's about it. Unless, you don't believe in our constitution, the bill of rights gives everyone the right to express their beliefs as long as it does not oppress another person's.

???

bizzare post  

 

[drmevo]

38 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

???

bizzare post  

 

Yeah, I don't get it either, sort of like earlier in the thread. 

[iacas]

@Lihu, please quote properly. Almost none of those contained the attribution.

[Mr. Desmond]

16 hours ago, Lihu said:

Not implying anything, the word "victim" has a specific connotation:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/victim

Now you are using "potential victim", which is kind of indeterminate. I don't know how we could predict that a person is a potential perpetrator?

Victims/Potential Victims -- the manner in which I used it, in this particular case, did not matter.

 Your view appears to be only if someone commits a crime do we limit their rights.

1. Let's take that example to the no fly list. Is it your view that an ndividual with no criminal records but behavior that matches the profiles of terrorists can get on a plane, or must we wait until...?

2. What makes the same individual with a gun different, or is it different to you?

In your view, it appears that people who have told their friends that "all I want to do is buy an AR-15 and shoot people"  ... " I can't stand (fill in blank of a particular race or religion of people), all I want to do is kill them," or "they don't deseverve to live," or have abused others, have traveled alone to the ME recently, interviews with several acquaintances corroborate the above events .... BUT have no criminal record, then it's fine for them to purchase any gun?

And what if they have a past criminal record but have served their time, and are post probation - they don't visit the probation officer any longer - do we give them back their rights? How about that individual who is diagnosed as bipolar and schizophrenic? Does he get his AR-15?

Each of us have their own opinion on where someone crosses that line of "no guns for you." You appear to say that line begins and end with a criminal record. Maybe not. If so, Is that your view even with a no fly zone?

Edited June 15, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[newtogolf]

27 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Victims/Potential Victims -- the manner in which I used it, in this particular case, did not matter.

 Your view appears to be only if someone commits a crime do we limit their rights.

1. Let's take that example to the no fly list. Is it your view that an ndividual with no criminal records but behavior that matches the profiles of terrorists can get on a plane, or must we wait until...?

2. What makes the same individual with a gun different, or is it different to you?

In your view, it appears that people who have told their friends that "all I want to do is buy an AR-15 and shoot people"  ... " I can't stand (fill in blank of a particular race or religion of people), all I want to do is kill them," or "they don't deseverve to live," or have abused others, have traveled alone to the ME recently, interviews with several acquaintances corroborate the above events .... BUT have no criminal record, then it's fine for them to purchase any gun?

And what if they have a past criminal record but have served their time, and are post probation - they don't visit the probation officer any longer - do we give them back their rights? How about that individual who is diagnosed as bipolar and schizophrenic? Does he get his AR-15?

Each of us have their own opinion on where someone crosses that line of "no guns for you." You appear to say that line begins and end with a criminal record. Maybe not. If so, Is that your view even with a no fly zone?

The problem with "no fly lists" or "no guns lists" is entry and removal from the list is arbitrary, at the sole discretion of the government TSC and there is no due process.  

What constitutes being placed on the "no fly list", beyond being considered a potential threat?  There is also no notification to individuals that are placed on the list.  It's a super secret government list that no one knows they're on until they try to fly or buy a gun.  The other issue with No Fly Lists is the false positives, if John A Smith is on the list, anyone with the name John A Smith is prevented from flying or buying a gun unless they can prove they are not the John A Smith that is considered a threat by TSC.  To reduce false positives, the airlines have had to create new databases to better manage this, but it's not feasible for mom and pop gun shop owners to do this.  

Boarding a plane isn't a Constitutional Right, owning a gun is.  If you're going to legally prevent someone from owning a gun, they have the right to know and a court hearing to dispute the decision.  

The current database contains over 1,000,000 names and grows daily, that's a lot of people who have not committed any crimes but you'd like to restrict Constitutional rights to.  

[Mr. Desmond]

57 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The problem with "no fly lists" or "no guns lists" is entry and removal from the list is arbitrary, at the sole discretion of the government TSC and there is no due process.  

What constitutes being placed on the "no fly list", beyond being considered a potential threat?  There is also no notification to individuals that are placed on the list.  It's a super secret government list that no one knows they're on until they try to fly or buy a gun.  The other issue with No Fly Lists is the false positives, if John A Smith is on the list, anyone with the name John A Smith is prevented from flying or buying a gun unless they can prove they are not the John A Smith that is considered a threat by TSC.  To reduce false positives, the airlines have had to create new databases to better manage this, but it's not feasible for mom and pop gun shop owners to do this.  

Boarding a plane isn't a Constitutional Right, owning a gun is.  If you're going to legally prevent someone from owning a gun, they have the right to know and a court hearing to dispute the decision.  

The current database contains over 1,000,000 names and grows daily, that's a lot of people who have not committed any crimes but you'd like to restrict Constitutional rights to.  

1. In an earlier post, I mentioned that Cat Stevens was on the no fly list - Agreed, the no fly process must meet an evidentiary standard of some degree - not an arbitrary standard.

2. As a society, I think we ought to agree on when someone's right to a gun conflicts with the freedom of society. We hear a lot about gun owner rights, but what about the rights of the public to live their lives with less threat of death from a gun? It's a societal decision, and that decision making process and discussion is blocked by special interests.

3. If you read my posts, I do not make a decision on restricting gun rights. I am asking questions designed to make some people think, "Where is the balance?" I introduce factors to ask the individual where is the balance for them to state that it is a difficult balance. It's similar to what law professors do with students -- they introduce a factor and ask, "Is this enough to influence your decision? Why/Why not? Then they add another factor and ask the same question, and keep it up. The questioning is designed, I believe, to open your mind -- to question yourself.

Some are open to it, many are not.

Australia does not have a Second Amendment - they do have tight gun laws and something like no mass shooting since late '90's. People may kill people, but apparently restricting guns cuts down on killing people.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, Mr. Desmond said:

1. Let's take that example to the no fly list. Is it your view that an ndividual with no criminal records but behavior that matches the profiles of terrorists can get on a plane, or must we wait until...?

Are we so good at telling how people will behave from profiling that we can get it right 100% of the time? Heck there are many issues with the current No-Fly list.
 

Spoiler

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

You can be named a terrorist by someone you don't even know if they tipped off the FBI. You know what this sounds like, the communist witch trials we had during the cold war. Where people were naming people communists out of fear or as a weapon of retaliation. Then the government would take you away and question you. It's really nonsensical. 

You can be unlucky enough to have a false positive. IN 2005 at 4 year old boy was put on the No-Fly list. Guess what the kids name was Edward Allen. In 2004 a Standford University student ended up on the No-Fly list because the FBI checked the wrong box on the form. 

https://www.wired.com/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/

Ibrahim was a Stanford University doctoral student in architecture and design from Malaysia and was headed to Hawaii to give a paper on affordable housing. Wheelchair-bound after just having a hysterectomy, she was handcuffed, detained for hours at San Francisco International Airport and denied her pain medication until paramedics arrived in 2005. She was eventually released and allowed to fly to her home country of Malaysia.

The government tried to cover up the mistake for years. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html

Here's another good one. Lets hope person with a common name doesn't end up on the No-Fly or Selectee list. An 8 year old boy was patted down at an airport because his name ended up on the Selectee list. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

2. As a society, I think we ought to agree on when someone's right to a gun conflicts with the freedom of society. We hear a lot about gun owner rights, but what about the rights of the public to live their lives with less threat of death from a gun? It's a societal decision, and that decision making process and discussion is blocked by special interests.

The polarized political landscape make this issue nearly impossible to compromise on. The right-wing media will say any law is the Democrats wanting to take away your right to own guns, while left-wing media will make it seem like gun bans will solve all the problems concerning gun violence.  

For me, does a person need an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic to protect themselves? Probably not. Could there be a regulated place that has a licence to own those type of guns for people to go and shoot them for sport, sure. I think something like that could be a compromise.

I think in most cases a handgun, shotgun, or a rifle is good enough. 

 

[Mr. Desmond]

8 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Are we so good at telling how people will behave from profiling that we can get it right 100% of the time? Heck there are many issues with the current No-Fly list.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

You can be named a terrorist by someone you don't even know if they tipped off the FBI. You know what this sounds like, the communist witch trials we had during the cold war. Where people were naming people communists out of fear or as a weapon of retaliation. Then the government would take you away and question you. It's really nonsensical. 

You can be unlucky enough to have a false positive. IN 2005 at 4 year old boy was put on the No-Fly list. Guess what the kids name was Edward Allen. In 2004 a Standford University student ended up on the No-Fly list because the FBI checked the wrong box on the form. 

https://www.wired.com/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/

Ibrahim was a Stanford University doctoral student in architecture and design from Malaysia and was headed to Hawaii to give a paper on affordable housing. Wheelchair-bound after just having a hysterectomy, she was handcuffed, detained for hours at San Francisco International Airport and denied her pain medication until paramedics arrived in 2005. She was eventually released and allowed to fly to her home country of Malaysia.

The government tried to cover up the mistake for years. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html

Here's another good one. Lets hope person with a common name doesn't end up on the No-Fly or Selectee list. An 8 year old boy was patted down at an airport because his name ended up on the Selectee list. 

 

 

The polarized political landscape make this issue nearly impossible to compromise on. The right-wing media will say any law is the Democrats wanting to take away your right to own guns, while left-wing media will make it seem like gun bans will solve all the problems concerning gun violence.  

For me, does a person need an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic to protect themselves? Probably not. Could there be a regulated place that has a licence to own those type of guns for people to go and shoot them for sport, sure. I think something like that could be a compromise.

I think in most cases a handgun, shotgun, or a rifle is good enough. 

 

Hi -

Agreed  - a couple of my posts speak to the issues with no fly lists.

Have thought about the regulated place to shoot "sporting guns." When I discuss it with friends, I am quickly schussed.