PDA

View Full Version : Sikhs express shock after shootings at Wisconsin temple


ricardisimo
08-06-2012, 05:03 AM
6 August 2012 Last updated at 03:25 ET http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62061000/jpg/_62061797_62060304.jpg Sikhs have sometimes been mistaken for Muslims and targeted in attacks post-9/11
Related Stories



Seven dead at Wisconsin temple (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19138754)
In Pictures: Sikh temple shooting (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19143274)
'People hiding in cupboards' Watch (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19143783)


Sikhs living in the United States have expressed their shock and fear after a shooting at a temple in Wisconsin on Sunday which left seven people dead.
Some community members could not believe what happened. Others said they had feared such attacks since 9/11.
A gunman entered the Sikh temple on Sunday morning and opened fire, killing six people and injuring a policeman.
A vigil for the victims was held in nearby Milwaukee as police searched the suspect's home.
FBI and bomb squad officers have surrounded the property of the alleged gunman in Cudahy, about 2.5 miles (4km) north of the Wisconsin Sikh Temple and evacuated local residents.
In total, seven people died in the attack in Oak Creek, a suburb of Milwaukee, including the gunman. A police officer and two other men were critically injured.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is himself a Sikh, said he was "deeply shocked and saddened" by the attack.
"That this senseless act of violence should be targeted at a place of religious worship is particularly painful," Mr Singh said in a statement.
Muslim confusion Officials have not yet identified the gunman or a possible motive, but Sikh organisations in the US say the community has been vulnerable since the 9/11 attacks.
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19143281#story_continues_2) Sikhism at a glance



Sikhism is a monotheistic faith founded more than 500 years ago in South Asia
Observant Sikhs do not cut their hair; male followers often wear turbans and do not shave their beards
The faith has about 27 million followers worldwide. There are up to 500,000 Sikhs in the US, where they have sometimes been confused with Muslims
In Sept 2001, an Arizona gas station owner, Balbir Singh Sodhi, was shot dead by a man said to be seeking revenge on Muslims for 9/11


"This is something we have been fearing since 9/11, that this kind of incident will take place," said Rajwant Singh, chairman of the Washington-based Sikh Council on Religion and Education.
"It was a matter of time because there's so much ignorance and people confuse us [as] being members of Taliban or belonging to [Osama] bin Laden," he told Associated Press.
"We never thought this could happen to our community," Devendar Nagra, 48, told Associated Press, "we never did anything wrong to anyone."
Sikhism hails from the Indian subcontinent and observant Sikhs wear turbans. Members of the community have been attacked in the past by assailants mistaking them for Muslims.
"That turban has tragically marked us as automatically suspect, perpetually foreign and potentially terrorists," Valarie Kaur, a filmmaker based in the US who has chronicled attacks on Sikhs, told the news agency.
Several hundred people turned up to an impromptu candlelit vigil in Milwaukee on Sunday evening for the victims of the shooting.
There are an estimated 2,500-3,000 Sikh families in and around the city worshipping at two gurdwaras and temples, including the Wisconsin Sikh Temple.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62060000/jpg/_62060382_62060381.jpg Distraught family members are still waiting for news in Oak Creek
Lakhwinder Singh, a member of the congregation there, told Reuters that two of the victims were believed to be the president of temple and a priest.
"It will take a long time to heal. We're hurt very badly," he said.
'Terrorist-type incident' President Barack Obama expressed his condolences with victims of the attack, which comes just over two weeks after a gun massacre left 12 people dead at a Colorado cinema.
"As we mourn this loss which took place at a house of worship, we are reminded how much our country has been enriched by Sikhs, who are a part of our broader American family."
The US embassy in India said it was "deeply saddened by the senseless loss of lives and injuries" caused by the shooting.
"Our hearts, thoughts, and prayers go out to the victims and their families," a statement said.
"The United States takes very seriously the responsibility to respect and protect people of all faiths. Religious freedom and religious tolerance are fundamental pillars of US society."
Local politician Mark Honadel called the attack "craziness".
The state representative told CNN: "Unfortunately, when this type of stuff hits your area, you say to yourself, 'why?' But in today's society, I don't think there's any place that's free from idiots."
Police have described it as a "domestic terrorist-type incident". The FBI are taking over the criminal investigation.
There was believed to be only one attacker, with eyewitness reports suggesting it was a white male.





More of the same. Welcome to our brave new America. Can't wait to hear the excuses.

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 10:09 AM
There's no excuse for a man on a rage rampage.

Reports are now that the man was ex military, possible skin head, and possibly had just broken up with his girlfriend. Thoughts go out to all those affected by this.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/authorities-identify-sikh-temple-shooter/

Vis
08-06-2012, 10:24 AM
He was in a white power band known as End Apathy.

Shooter, Wade Page, was Army vet, white supremacist
By John Diedrich, Don Walker and Mike Johnson of the Journal Sentinel
Aug. 6, 2012 8:36 a.m.

The shooter in the deadly attack Sunday at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek was identified as Wade Michael Page, 40, sources familiar with the shooting investigation said Monday.

He served in the Army for several years and was assigned to psychological operations, or PsyOps, according to the sources.

He is no longer in the Army.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that has studied hate crimes for decades, reported Monday that Page was a frustrated neo-Nazi who had been the leader of a racist white-power band known as End Apathy.

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 10:33 AM
Also, take these articles for what their worth, since they come from infowars. But I do find it highly suspicious that this is being treated as a lone gunman, domestic terrorism situation, when there are witness reports claiming different.

The official and repeating scenario (“we believe there was only one shooter”) has already been contradicted.
Two witnesses (one who was apparently inside the temple and one outside who obtained information from his father) state there were multiple shooters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zYCurbSAsd4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9ecdSKi9_fs
The second witness says four white males unleashed a coordinated attack inside the temple. The first witness says gas was released.

http://www.infowars.com/shooting-at-sikh-temple-who-benefits-big-time/

Despite the fact that a number of different eyewitnesses reported multiple shooters, the narrative of the lone gunman, a disgruntled US Army veteran, has now been fixed. This conveniently dovetails with recent efforts by the feds to demonize returning veterans as potential terrorists, which itself is part of the wider move to smear conservatives as domestic extremists.

The FBI has also gone out of its way to characterize returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan as a major domestic terrorist threat. Additionally, Janet Napolitano said she stood by an April 2009 DHS intelligence assessment that listed returning vets as likely domestic terrorists.

http://www.infowars.com/sikh-shooting-ties-into-dhs-veterans-as-terrorists-narrative/

Surrounded By Psychopaths And Sociopaths As We Approach Societal Collapse
http://www.infowars.com/surrounded-by-psychopaths-and-sociopaths-as-we-approach-societal-collapse/

Vis
08-06-2012, 10:39 AM
Also, take these articles for what their worth, since they come from infowars.


They aren't worth posting

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 10:40 AM
They aren't worth posting

Then just take a look at the youtube links, if you don't want to read the articles.

Besides, it's not like they're saying anything really new. It's already known fact that vets are considered potential terrorists.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all
http://boehner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=122568

Vis
08-06-2012, 10:58 AM
Then just take a look at the youtube links, if you don't want to read the articles.

Besides, it's not like they're saying anything really new. It's already known fact that vets are considered potential terrorists.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all
http://boehner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=122568


Are you a conspiracy believer? While it's possible Wade had others with him who have gotten away at this point, ballistics will tell if more than one gun was used. What isn't possible is that this is a government run hit team.

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 11:06 AM
Are you a conspiracy believer?

Sometimes...depends on what information I'm presented with and what conclusions I come to. Haven't come to any definite conclusions here.

While it's possible Wade had others with him who have gotten away at this point, ballistics will tell if more than one gun was used. What isn't possible is that this is a government run hit team.

Never stated that's what happened, just providing links to what some people have said that contradict what is being reported as a lone gunman attack.

I guess I'm just not as quick to dismiss gov't involvement as you are. Not going to state that I believe anything definitive, but I'm certainly not going to rule out the possibility, especially in the context of what is going on with the US and UN right now.

At any rate, this will just be another story to promote groups of people to domestic terrorist lists and further the agenda of banning firearms. Whether the gov't had any involvement or not, they're certainly going to run with this.

Shame that tragedies are used in such ways.

Vis
08-06-2012, 11:16 AM
Sometimes...depends on what information I'm presented with and what conclusions I come to. Haven't come to any definite conclusions here.



Never stated that's what happened, just providing links to what some people have said that contradict what is being reported as a lone gunman attack.

I guess I'm just not as quick to dismiss gov't involvement as you are. Not going to state that I believe anything definitive, but I'm certainly not going to rule out the possibility, especially in the context of what is going on with the US and UN right now.

At any rate, this will just be another story to promote groups of people to domestic terrorist lists and further the agenda of banning firearms. Whether the gov't had any involvement or not, they're certainly going to run with this.

Shame that tragedies are used in such ways.

What's going on in the US and UN right now? Without referring to anything Glenn Beckish if you can.

After all, you are suggesting that it is possible for the FBI, full of people who have served throughout many different administrations, to be in on killing innocent people and shooting a cop. It would take the silence and complicity of how many people to plan and execute such an undertaking? Would Wade be a secret part of the FBI or just a dupe, convenient skinhead they kidnapped and mind controlled?

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 11:48 AM
What's going on in the US and UN right now? Without referring to anything Glenn Beckish if you can.

After all, you are suggesting that it is possible for the FBI, full of people who have served throughout many different administrations, to be in on killing innocent people and shooting a cop. It would take the silence and complicity of how many people to plan and execute such an undertaking? Would Wade be a secret part of the FBI or just a dupe, convenient skinhead they kidnapped and mind controlled?

You aren't even reading my posts apparently, just injecting your own interpretations.

I'm not suggesting anything, other than the official story of one shooter may not be correct, and posted corresponding links and videos. You took that to mean I'm a conspiracy nut who thinks the gov't is behind it.

As to your trap questions, it really wouldn't take that many people at all. Just a few, if that. Also, Page WAS a part of the PSYOPS program. But again, I'm not stating that's what I fully believe, just that I don't think it is an impossibility.

What's going on with the US and UN right now? Try reading a news article about the UN small arms ban for one.

Vincent
08-06-2012, 12:02 PM
What's going on in the US and UN right now? Without referring to anything Glenn Beckish if you can.

You read (http://www.amazon.com/America-Disarmed-Inside-Destroy-Amendment/dp/1936488434/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344267129&sr=1-1&keywords=america+disarmed+inside+the+u.n.+and+obam as+scheme+to+destroy+the+second+amendment), don't you?

After all, you are suggesting that it is possible for the FBI, full of people who have served throughout many different administrations, to be in on killing innocent people and shooting a cop. It would take the silence and complicity of how many people to plan and execute such an undertaking? Would Wade be a secret part of the FBI or just a dupe, convenient skinhead they kidnapped and mind controlled?

Dots. Dots everywhere.

"Administration" declares returning combat vets, "patriots", folks that have an issue with globalism, and religious folks (white Christians, not to be confused with [slur] and the like) to be terror threats.

Lone white nutjob (http://ll-media.tmz.com/2012/08/05/0804-jared-lee-loughner-mug-1.jpg) shoots up a shopping center and nearly kills a dem congresswoman in the process. Media dishes on "semi-automatic hand gun" for months.

Lone white nutjob (http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2012/07/20/A-look-at-Aurora-shooting-suspect-James-Holmes-971TBT39-x-large.jpg) shoots up a theater, kills 12 and wounds 50+. Dems and their shills dish on "semi-automatic hand gun" and "assault rifle" endlessly.

Lone white wackjob shoots up a Sikh temple with, you guessed it, a "semi-automatic hand gun".

Y'know, those DHS folks just might be onto something here. We really do need to get these guns off the streets before the white crazy kills again. The democrat art of manufactured crisis. Never let a crisis go to waste.

As I recall, the previous democrat occupant of the White House was severely rebuked by the 94 "Republican Revolution". His presidency was in deep Kimchee until he affected the persona of "mourner in chief" following the Oklahoma City tragedy where, you guessed it once again, white moonbats had "acted out" against the gubmint, killing 200 in the process. As I further recall, all the FBI, DEA, and ATF personnel were not in their offices that morning. But the day care center in the building and all the other offices were in full swing.

So now we have another dem without a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected and all of a sudden the white crazies come running out from under the walls.

Expect more. The "administration" needs to declare Marshall law before November 6th (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-gov-bev-perdue-talks-suspending-elections-160323133.html).

Atlanta Dan
08-06-2012, 12:13 PM
You read (http://www.amazon.com/America-Disarmed-Inside-Destroy-Amendment/dp/1936488434/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344267129&sr=1-1&keywords=america+disarmed+inside+the+u.n.+and+obam as+scheme+to+destroy+the+second+amendment), don't you?



Dots. Dots everywhere.

"Administration" declares returning combat vets, "patriots", folks that have an issue with globalism, and religious folks (white Christians, not to be confused with [slur] and the like) to be terror threats.

Lone white nutjob (http://ll-media.tmz.com/2012/08/05/0804-jared-lee-loughner-mug-1.jpg) shoots up a shopping center and nearly kills a dem congresswoman in the process. Media dishes on "semi-automatic hand gun" for months.

Lone white nutjob (http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2012/07/20/A-look-at-Aurora-shooting-suspect-James-Holmes-971TBT39-x-large.jpg) shoots up a theater, kills 12 and wounds 50+. Dems and their shills dish on "semi-automatic hand gun" and "assault rifle" endlessly.

Lone white wackjob shoots up a Sikh temple with, you guessed it, a "semi-automatic hand gun".

Y'know, those DHS folks just might be onto something here. We really do need to get these guns off the streets before the white crazy kills again. The democrat art of manufactured crisis. Never let a crisis go to waste.

As I recall, the previous democrat occupant of the White House was severely rebuked by the 94 "Republican Revolution". His presidency was in deep Kimchee until he affected the persona of "mourner in chief" following the Oklahoma City tragedy where, you guessed it once again, white moonbats had "acted out" against the gubmint, killing 200 in the process. As I further recall, all the FBI, DEA, and ATF personnel were not in their offices that morning. But the day care center in the building and all the other offices were in full swing.

So now we have another dem without a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected and all of a sudden the white crazies come running out from under the walls.

Expect more. The "administration" needs to declare Marshall law before November 6th (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-gov-bev-perdue-talks-suspending-elections-160323133.html).

And I guess Bush planned 9-11 because his popularity was falling in late summer of 2001?

Is the tin foil hat you wear to decode the secret transmissions of "what really happened" a fedora or a baseball cap?

Good Lord:banging:

P.S. - it is spelled "martial" not "marshall" law

Vincent
08-06-2012, 12:29 PM
And I guess Bush planned 9-11 because his popularity was falling in late summer of 2001?

I don't know, what did you see (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_J7ak_IZXk&feature=related) on 9/11?

The precision with which those two towers and all the other WTC building fell was stunning.

Let's just say that I'm not entirely sold on the narrative. One or two details seem amiss.

P.S. - it is spelled "martial" not "marshall" law

Yeah, maybe I should edit that.

Vis
08-06-2012, 12:33 PM
It could be a Mormon hit squad. Not saying I fully believe that but I'm not ready to dismiss the possibility.

Atlanta Dan
08-06-2012, 12:53 PM
It could be a Mormon hit squad. Not saying I fully believe that but I'm not ready to dismiss the possibility.

Yeah - now that you mention it, Bush, Obama, and Romney were, by "remarkable" coincidence, not present at the WTC or the Pentagon on the morning of 9-11.

Seems pretty clear we should not rule out a tripartite Mormon/GOP/Democrat conspiracy

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 01:13 PM
So glad that's what was taken from what I posted. :doh:

Again, I'm not saying whether or not I think it was some kind of gov't operation...I was posting on the fact that there are differing reports of how many shooters there were.

But yeah, I'm just a conspiracy nut, so those news accounts don't mean anything.

Thanks for twisting my post around, Vis. Much appreciated.

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 01:17 PM
Now that that's out of the way, Wally posted a thought over at SX that I didn't even think of and that's the fact that these two shootings (Colorado and Wisconsin) are being presented in very different manners. Holmes was never referred to as a domestic terrorist (at least not in anything that I've read), but Page was immediately labeled one. This goes back to my mentioning of war vets being listed as possible domestic terrorists. Mainstream media wasted no time in magnifying that. Just kind of odd if you ask me.

Vincent
08-06-2012, 01:18 PM
Seems pretty clear we should not rule out a tripartite Mormon/GOP/Democrat conspiracy

Looking forward to Ric's response to that statement, assuming he's not too busy ridding the planet of pejoratives.

Thanks for twisting my post around, Vis. Much appreciated.

He's a lawyer. Its what he does.

Vis
08-06-2012, 01:19 PM
So glad that's what was taken from what I posted. :doh:

Again, I'm not saying whether or not I think it was some kind of gov't operation...I was posting on the fact that there are differing reports of how many shooters there were.

But yeah, I'm just a conspiracy nut, so those news accounts don't mean anything.

Thanks for twisting my post around, Vis. Much appreciated.

You posted a conspiracy theory and said you couldn't dismiss it entirely. That's all I did, too. Just as much proof for mine as yours. Then Vinny jumped into the deep end.

Vis
08-06-2012, 01:24 PM
Now that that's out of the way, Wally posted a thought over at SX that I didn't even think of and that's the fact that these two shootings (Colorado and Wisconsin) are being presented in very different manners. Holmes was never referred to as a domestic terrorist (at least not in anything that I've read), but Page was immediately labeled one. This goes back to my mentioning of war vets being listed as possible domestic terrorists. Mainstream media wasted no time in magnifying that. Just kind of odd if you ask me.


Maybe it's because one was a skinhead and it has nothing to do with military service. Especially since it is being reported that he received a general discharge and could not re-enlist after being demoted. "terrorist" as a word has a meaning. A crazy guy who thinks he's the Joker doesn't fit the word. A racist with links to known hate groups killing people of a different race and religion because of those differences does.

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 01:26 PM
You posted a conspiracy theory and said you couldn't dismiss it entirely. That's all I did, too. Just as much proof for mine as yours. Then Vinny jumped into the deep end.

Let me post what happened here in the order it happened...

Me: But I do find it highly suspicious that this is being treated as a lone gunman, domestic terrorism situation, when there are witness reports claiming different.

You: Are you a conspiracy believer? While it's possible Wade had others with him who have gotten away at this point, ballistics will tell if more than one gun was used. What isn't possible is that this is a government run hit team. (Never stated that as a possibility in my initial post there, you jumped to that conclusion on your own)

Me: Haven't come to any definite conclusions here. Never stated that's what happened, just providing links to what some people have said that contradict what is being reported as a lone gunman attack. Not going to state that I believe anything definitive, but I'm certainly not going to rule out the possibility, especially in the context of what is going on with the US and UN right now.

You: After all, you are suggesting that it is possible for the FBI, full of people who have served throughout many different administrations, to be in on killing innocent people and shooting a cop. (Again, didn't do that, you made this up yourself)

Me: You aren't even reading my posts apparently, just injecting your own interpretations.

I'm not suggesting anything, other than the official story of one shooter may not be correct, and posted corresponding links and videos. You took that to mean I'm a conspiracy nut who thinks the gov't is behind it.

You: It could be a Mormon hit squad. Not saying I fully believe that but I'm not ready to dismiss the possibility.

Me: Again, I'm not saying whether or not I think it was some kind of gov't operation...I was posting on the fact that there are differing reports of how many shooters there were.

You: You posted a conspiracy theory and said you couldn't dismiss it entirely.

Me: *Facepalming myself*

Wallace108
08-06-2012, 01:29 PM
Now that that's out of the way, Wally posted a thought over at SX that I didn't even think of and that's the fact that these two shootings (Colorado and Wisconsin) are being presented in very different manners. Holmes was never referred to as a domestic terrorist (at least not in anything that I've read), but Page was immediately labeled one. This goes back to my mentioning of war vets being listed as possible domestic terrorists. Mainstream media wasted no time in magnifying that. Just kind of odd if you ask me.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting anything, I just find it odd how the two stories were presented. In the Colorado shooting, everyone waited until the details came out (well, except for those who instantly and incorrectly labeled Holmes as a tea-party member). But there was no mention of domestic terrorism. The Wisconsin shooting was labeled domestic terrorism right from the beginning. By way of comparison, it took the government and media forever to label the Fort Hood shooting as an act of terrorism (which it was). I don't know what all that means ... I just find it odd.

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 01:32 PM
Yeah, I'm not suggesting anything, I just find it odd how the two stories were presented. In the Colorado shooting, everyone waited until the details came out (well, except for those who instantly and incorrectly labeled Holmes as a tea-party member). But there was no mention of domestic terrorism. The Wisconsin shooting was labeled domestic terrorism right from the beginning. By way of comparison, it took the government and media forever to label the Fort Hood shooting as an act of terrorism (which it was). I don't know what all that means ... I just find it odd.

That's how I took your comment there as well. This was labeled domestic terrorism even before a description of the shooter came out, let alone a name and the fact that he had tattoos. I just thought that was odd as well.

Vis
08-06-2012, 01:33 PM
domestic terrorism - terrorism practiced in your own country against your own people; "the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City was an instance of domestic terrorism"
act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear


Can you not see how the Sikh shooting could fit this definition while the Batman shooting could not?

Vincent
08-06-2012, 01:36 PM
Now that that's out of the way, Wally posted a thought over at SX that I didn't even think of and that's the fact that these two shootings (Colorado and Wisconsin) are being presented in very different manners. Holmes was never referred to as a domestic terrorist (at least not in anything that I've read), but Page was immediately labeled one. This goes back to my mentioning of war vets being listed as possible domestic terrorists. Mainstream media wasted no time in magnifying that. Just kind of odd if you ask me.

If one is "domestic terrorism" then the others are as well. If they "aren't" then neither is Wisconsin.

If you're going to label a broad segment of society "domestic terrorists", you better have some "domestic terrorism" for the media and pols to jaw about.

Vis
08-06-2012, 01:39 PM
If one is "domestic terrorism" then the others are as well. If they "aren't" then neither is Wisconsin.

If you're going to label a broad segment of society "domestic terrorists", you better have some "domestic terrorism" for the media and pols to jaw about.


Only if you don't know that "terrorist" and "killer" aren't synonyms

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 01:40 PM
domestic terrorism - terrorism practiced in your own country against your own people; "the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City was an instance of domestic terrorism"
act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear


Can you not see how the Sikh shooting could fit this definition while the Batman shooting could not?


Ummm...I guess, I'm just saying that I too think it was odd that it was called domestic terrorism before any name, description, or motive was released.

And are you saying there's no way that someone could shoot up a movie theater as a way to attain goals that are ideological in nature (how broad stretching is that term?) by instilling fear? Kind of seems like it could to me, you could apply that to almost anything.

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 01:42 PM
If one is "domestic terrorism" then the others are as well. If they "aren't" then neither is Wisconsin.

If you're going to label a broad segment of society "domestic terrorists", you better have some "domestic terrorism" for the media and pols to jaw about.

The apocalypse is surely upon us...we agree on something. :chuckle:

In the article I posted in the thread about scouts, they are training these kids to not only be militarily ready for border jumpers and well known images of terrorists, but for domestic terrorists, such as Iraq war vets, as well.

Train 'em young.

Wallace108
08-06-2012, 01:43 PM
Can you not see how the Sikh shooting could fit this definition while the Batman shooting could not?

No, not immediately after they happened. What I saw in both cases was men who went into buildings and killed people. In one shooting, they spent days gathering information about the shooter before coming to any conclusions. In the other, it was immediately labeled domestic terrorism.

Don't you first have to gather information about the shooter before coming to conclusions?

Vis
08-06-2012, 01:46 PM
Ummm...I guess, I'm just saying that I too think it was odd that it was called domestic terrorism before any name, description, or motive was released.

And are you saying there's no way that someone could shoot up a movie theater as a way to attain goals that are ideological in nature (how broad stretching is that term?) by instilling fear? Kind of seems like it could to me, you could apply that to almost anything.


Any act of violence or threat of violence can be terrorism. terrorism is a word denoting the motive. Yes the news jumped on the word quickly. They do that for a reason - sensationalism = ratings.

the Joker guy (following Dan's lead on naming him) was only trying to be a famous villain. He's the real version of Mr. Glass. If he had a political motive he did a piss poor job of getting the word out.

It could also be that the Sikh shooter didn't want to make a point but just hated different people enough to simply want to kill as many as he could. That isn't terrorism either. It's just evil.

Vincent
08-06-2012, 01:47 PM
Then Vinny jumped into the deep end.

Google Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini just for giggles.

Vis
08-06-2012, 01:48 PM
No, not immediately after they happened. What I saw in both cases was men who went into buildings and killed people. In one shooting, they spent days gathering information about the shooter before coming to any conclusions. In the other, it was immediately labeled domestic terrorism.

Don't you first have to gather information about the shooter before coming to conclusions?


Are you gathering all information before coming to the conclusion the media planned it to make some political point?

Vis
08-06-2012, 01:48 PM
Google Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini just for giggles.


Did he build your pool?

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 01:55 PM
Are you gathering all information before coming to the conclusion the media planned it to make some political point?

Nobody came to any conclusions (except the media that is). It was just posted to point out the oddity of how both cases were handled in the media.

Vis
08-06-2012, 01:57 PM
Nobody came to any conclusions (except the media that is). It was just posted to point out the oddity of how both cases were handled in the media.


But in both cases, they probably got it right. Especially if Wade didn't act alone.

Wallace108
08-06-2012, 01:58 PM
Are you gathering all information before coming to the conclusion the media planned it to make some political point?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. I didn't come to any conclusions. Here's what I said:

I don't know what all that means ... I just find it odd.

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 02:02 PM
But in both cases, they probably got it right. Especially if Wade didn't act alone.

Maybe, unless of course it's like you said and this was just a person or persons acting out of extreme hate, which is just evil and not terrorism. Or is it terrorism? Who knows, the definition for domestic terrorist now is so broad that I lose track.

Vincent
08-06-2012, 02:08 PM
Did he build your pool?

No, domestic terrorists built my pool. HHaH is a fer-ner.

He's also the elusive "John Doe #2" seen with McVeigh at the OC bombing. Prior to that he was an Iraqi Republican Guard officer, and also worked in Iraqi Intel. He subsequently worked in security at Logan Airport, and on 9/11 resided with two other Iraqis who were also employed at Logan at that time.

The FBI has fallen all over themselves to avoid this guy.

You do read (http://www.amazon.com/The-Third-Terrorist-Connection-Oklahoma/dp/0785261036), don't you?

Vis
08-06-2012, 02:16 PM
Maybe, unless of course it's like you said and this was just a person or persons acting out of extreme hate, which is just evil and not terrorism. Or is it terrorism? Who knows, the definition for domestic terrorist now is so broad that I lose track.


I think the definition is the same. It's just overused. The T word grabs attention

Vincent
08-06-2012, 02:19 PM
The T word grabs attention

Precisely.

Bayz101
08-06-2012, 02:19 PM
I think the definition is the same. It's just overused. The T word grabs attemtion

The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth.

According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Vis
08-06-2012, 02:31 PM
The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth.

According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Forget legal definitions. Use Websters

Bayz101
08-06-2012, 02:47 PM
Well, you can put one and two together and know it means a terrorist close to home.

Atlanta Dan
08-06-2012, 02:59 PM
Looking forward to Ric's response to that statement, assuming he's not too busy ridding the planet of pejoratives..

I believe if I would have posted something along the lines of describing the alleged co-conspirators as "polygamist cult/fascist worshipers of Mammon/welfare loving sodomites" it might be more in the spirit of the language used by certain posters that Ric has noted

Vincent
08-06-2012, 03:02 PM
I believe if I would have posted something along the lines of describing the alleged co-conspirators as "polygamist cult/fascist worshipers of Mammon/welfare loving sodomites" it might be more in the spirit of the language used by certain posters that Ric has noted

You just slammed the moslems. Ric's gonna be pissed.

ricardisimo
08-06-2012, 03:52 PM
Sigh...

Vincent's addiction to name-calling aside, I'm not sure why the definition of terrorism is at issue here (I would say this incident terrorized the domestic population, wouldn't you?) nor why the conversation isn't once again about the guns. Easy access to guns makes for easy access to murder.

I'm looking forward to hearing Vincent's suspicions about the "isolated crazy incidents" and how they're used for nefarious purposes (I'm assuming to bolster the anti-gun lobby's arguments). Under what sized rock does one have to live to view this as "isolated"?

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 05:27 PM
Sigh...

Vincent's addiction to name-calling aside, I'm not sure why the definition of terrorism is at issue here (I would say this incident terrorized the domestic population, wouldn't you?) nor why the conversation isn't once again about the guns. Easy access to guns makes for easy access to murder.

I'm looking forward to hearing Vincent's suspicions about the "isolated crazy incidents" and how they're used for nefarious purposes (I'm assuming to bolster the anti-gun lobby's arguments). Under what sized rock does one have to live to view this as "isolated"?

Partially my fault I suppose, but that's not the direction I was intending it to take.

As for the gun thing, I don't see how banning guns would stop people who want to murder from murdering. Especially when we're talking about handguns (which is all this supposed lone gunman had). Wouldn't it instead be prudent to look at WHY people commit such crimes, and try to deal with that issue, instead of punishing law abiding citizens?

I had posted before about how banning all guns isn't going to solve the problem (this post was lost in the board reset), and used DC as an example. I can't remember the year offhand from the article I read, but it stated that 1/5th of guns confiscated were homemade handguns. You'd have to ban people from shopping the Sears catalog to effectively keep guns out of crazy people's hands. Just google how to make a handgun if you think I'm joking.

But lets take UK for an example here...

(From 2001)
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

(From 2008)
The gun shown here, a Webley, is up for sale in London for £150, one of hundreds of such weapons that are easily and cheaply available on the streets of the UK's big cities, a Guardian investigation can reveal.

The variety of weapons on offer in Britain is extensive and includes machine guns and shotguns, as well as pistols and converted replicas. A source close to the trade in illegal weapons contacted by the Guardian listed a menu of firearms that are available on the streets of the capital.

"You can get a clean [unused] 9mm automatic for £1,500, a Glock for a couple of grand and you can even make an order for a couple of MAC-10s," he said. "Or you can get a little sawn-off for £150. They're easy enough to get hold of. You'll find one in any poverty area, every estate in London, and it's even easier in Manchester, where there are areas where the police don't go.

"People who use shotguns tend to be lower down the pecking order. There is less use of sawn-off or full length shotguns, and if a criminal wants street cred, he wants a self-loading pistol, a MAC-10 or an Uzi submachine gun."

This week a man who ran a "factory" for converting replica weapons into working guns was jailed for life. Police believe the products of Grant Wilkinson's workshops were used in more than 50 shootings, including eight murders. His speciality was turning legally purchased MAC-10s into weapons that could fire live rounds, an increasingly common practice.

According to David Dyson, a leading firearms consultant, it is possible to learn through the internet how to make a firearm, given a degree of skill, and converted deactivated weapons also feature in shootings.

But it is the arrival of eastern European weapons that, alongside a homegrown industry in converting them, has contributed to the firearms glut. "There has been an influx from eastern Europe and particularly from Poland, and there are also a lot coming in from people who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq," said the source. "In Liverpool docks, you can put in an order for 10 guns and some grenades and they'll say OK and two weeks later, they will be there - and they are straight goers."

According to Dyson, the latest "weapon of choice" is a Russian 8mm Baikal self-defence pistol, originally used for firing CS gas. "They are legally sold in Germany and won't fire a bullet but they can be converted by removing the partially blocked barrel, and replacing it with a rifled barrel," he said. "After other small alterations, it can then fire 9mm bulleted ammunition. The replacement barrel is longer than the original, and is threaded so that it will accept a silencer, which is commonly sold as part of the package.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

(From 2009)
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz22nrzKLXn


I know their gun crime is still significantly lower than the US, but by their standards, strict gun laws haven't kept gun crime down at all. Instead, it's been the opposite.

And I'm in agreement with Vincent on this one, not that this is some kind of isolated incident, but that it is being magnified and used to bolster the argument that citizens should be heavily restricted from owning firearms. We'd obviously be much safer I guess if only criminals, police, and military were the only ones with firearms.

Vincent
08-06-2012, 05:34 PM
Vincent's addiction to name-calling aside...

Gee Ric, exaggerate much?

Call a moslem a [slur] and you're "addicted to name calling". Its not like I called them inbred 7th century mutants or anything so unbecoming.

Easy access to guns makes for easy access to murder.

Murderers murder people. Their choice of implements vary.

As an example, when moslems in India murder Indians they bomb, hack, grenade, hang, stab, beat, and yes, shoot the objects of their love and peace. And that was just in the last month. Since 9/11 there have been over 1700 individual acts of moslem love and peace against Indians (in India alone) tallying an impressive 4600 deaths and nearly 11000 wounded. And to their credit, the moslems don't love just the Sikhs. They share their love with all Indians. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Somewhere in those statistics there might be an argument for armed Indians but I'll leave that to the more erudite.

I'm looking forward to hearing Vincent's suspicions about the "isolated crazy incidents" and how they're used for nefarious purposes (I'm assuming to bolster the anti-gun lobby's arguments). Under what sized rock does one have to live to view this as "isolated"?

By "isolated crazy incidents" who are you quoting?

I will quote one of your favorite sources on the subject - Mother Jones. Since 1982 there have been "58 mass murders" (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map)carried out with guns. Thats 58 too many incidents. An average of just under 2 incidents a year. And isolated.

Compare those 58 incidents over 30 years to the loving acts of kindness committed by our moslem friends since 9/11 alone - 19,734 incidents leaving more than 100,000 dead and over 170,000 wounded.

Yes, again, 58 too many incidents. But in context of a population of 300 million over 30 years, modest numbers indeed. Vastly more took their own lives with guns in the same span.

I know their gun crime is still significantly lower than the US, but by their standards, strict gun laws haven't kept gun crime down at all. Instead, it's been the opposite.

And, as it happens, only the bad guys have guns.

tony hipchest
08-06-2012, 06:28 PM
I will quote one of your favorite sources on the subject - Mother Jones. Since 1982 there have been "58 mass murders" (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map)carried out with guns. Thats 58 too many incidents. An average of just under 2 incidents a year. And isolated.

Compare those 58 incidents over 30 years to the loving acts of kindness committed by our moslem friends since 9/11 alone - 19,734 incidents leaving more than 100,000 dead and over 170,000 wounded.

Yes, again, 58 too many incidents. But in context of a population of 300 million over 30 years, modest numbers indeed. Vastly more took their own lives with guns in the same span.



And, as it happens, only the bad guys have guns.


:toofunny: those global numbers are the numbers of chumps. (funny how those numbers are grossly inflated since LLT last tried presenting this argument several years ago- i guess the right wing moslem haters had to bump them up a bit to be more evil than our north american "trade" partners.

do you have a favorable opinion of mexicans vincent? how bout the random acts of terror kindness commited 100 miles away from me in Juarez every single day? or your fellow countrymen who smuggle billions of dollars and thousands of guns that fuel the daily terrorism on our back porch.

its funny because the ones who often speak the loudest about muslim terrorism are usually the ones most silent on the failed war on drugs and the terrorism conducted by the southern cartels.

is it because one has a backdrop of an apocalyptic battle of religions and the other is just americas past time of doing drugs?

no matter how you slice it, we are a nation of rich drug addicted Christians, and people either hate us or want a peice of what we've got...

ricardisimo
08-06-2012, 07:21 PM
Gee Ric, exaggerate much?

Call a moslem a [slur] and you're "addicted to name calling". Its not like I called them inbred 7th century mutants or anything so unbecoming.

I'm asking you politely, Vincent. Tone it down. You've been coddled and enabled by your fellow kooks on these boards for a long time, but it won't be happening any longer, not here anyway. State your arguments - however distasteful they happen to be to many of us - in a respectful manner, or be infracted. Stop with the slurs. That's all I'm asking.

Murderers murder people. Their choice of implements vary.
True, and the weapon of choice in this country is guns, which make murdering easier, quicker, and a lot more fun for sickos.
As an example, when moslems in India murder Indians they bomb, hack, grenade, hang, stab, beat, and yes, shoot the objects of their love and peace. And that was just in the last month. Since 9/11 there have been over 1700 individual acts of moslem love and peace against Indians (in India alone) tallying an impressive 4600 deaths and nearly 11000 wounded. And to their credit, the moslems don't love just the Sikhs. They share their love with all Indians. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Somewhere in those statistics there might be an argument for armed Indians but I'll leave that to the more erudite.

What are the murder rates in those backward, ultra-violent Muslim countries? How many other countries have those Islamic nations invaded in the past 200 years?

By "isolated crazy incidents" who are you quoting?
You. (http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=1019395&postcount=39)
I will quote one of your favorite sources on the subject - Mother Jones. Since 1982 there have been "58 mass murders" (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map)carried out with guns. Thats 58 too many incidents. An average of just under 2 incidents a year. And isolated.

Compare those 58 incidents over 30 years to the loving acts of kindness committed by our moslem friends since 9/11 alone - 19,734 incidents leaving more than 100,000 dead and over 170,000 wounded.

Yes, again, 58 too many incidents. But in context of a population of 300 million over 30 years, modest numbers indeed. Vastly more took their own lives with guns in the same span.
I don't read Mother Jones, so I doubt very much that I have ever quoted them. You know very well that aside from the occasional Chomsky or Cockburn editorial, I tend to quote "the enemy"... CIA World Factbooks, the US government itself, Fox News, etc. Makes arguments much more interesting when you agree to use whatever numbers and ideas they are citing. But you keep posting that non-partisan "religionofpeace" link. Winning people over by the boatload with that one, I'm sure.

As far as "58 too many incidents", what drugs are you on? By "58 too many" are you referring to how many people are murdered with handguns every day in the United States? Because I believe you will find that number is actually much higher. Every day. And if we're talking of "modest numbers", how about the murder rates in China (and you can include mass-knifings if you'd like, as per MoP's recent post)? That's over a billion people, in a similarly crime-obsessed culture as ours, somehow miraculously not killing each other at anywhere near the rates we do. Go figure.

And, as it happens, only the bad guys have guns.
Really? Is there some sort of "bad guy" stat to which you are privy?

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 07:43 PM
Really? Is there some sort of "bad guy" stat to which you are privy?

He was quoting what I said about gun crime in the UK. And even they admit it. Their murder rate (per capita) is much lower (in most areas), but their violent crime rate is actually higher.

This is a bit dated, from 2002, but it doesn't contradict any of the other articles I posted.

On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article's battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America's Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world's gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England's low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

A more recent article from the same site...

However one comes down on this issue, we should understand that it is not relevant to the gun-policy question. Even if there was no chance of stopping Holmes, that would not justify restricting law-abiding people from carrying handguns.

Let’s go over some basics, which the gun controllers stubbornly refuse to acknowledge:

People intent on breaking the law against murder are not likely to respect a law against possession of firearms. The only people restricted by gun laws are law-abiding people. This point is so obvious, one wonders why some deny or ignore it.

The criminal, unfortunately, chooses the time, place, and manner of his crime. I don’t like that rule either, but that’s the way it is. Criminals aren’t irrational, so they tend not to pick victims standing near cops. When you are attacked, calling 9-1-1 will do little good. For the record, the police are under no legal obligation to defend you. The courts have spoken on this—not that your survivors’ ability to sue the police would bring much comfort.

The upshot is that, high-flown political theory aside, no one can truly delegate his or her right to or responsibility for one’s own self-defense. Ultimately, you are the only one who can look out for your safety, because you are only one who is with you 24/7 and therefore the only one you can count on when the criminal targets you. That’s just a fact.
Another fact is that while guns are used to take innocent life, they are also used to protect innocent life. The numbers are in dispute—ranging from 100,000 to over 2 million times a year—but no reasonable person can doubt that people use guns to prevent violent crime, often, if not usually, without firing them. Gun opponents downplay this by distracting us with dubious statistics on how often criminals disarm and kill their victims or how often guns are used to escalate arguments over card games and fender benders. The fact remains: Guns save lives.

Many people don’t appreciate this because most such incidents are not reported to police or the news media. Moreover, the national media are uninterested in defensive gun-use stories. Local news outlets pay attention when an elderly person or shopkeeper uses a gun to thwart a would-be criminal, but the national media, which give wall-to-wall coverage to mass shootings, apparently have no time to report life-saving uses of firearms. No wonder some people believe handguns are only tools for criminals.

Even if we concede that tighter gun laws would have stopped the Aurora shooting—unlikely, because a determined Holmes could have acquired guns in the inevitable black market—those laws also would have cost innocent lives, because people who would have used guns to defend themselves would have been unable to do so. Why are those lives less important than the others?

People are not interchangeable. Even if gun control could save one life—or a hundred—in one place, that would not justify putting other people at the mercy of criminals somewhere else. People have a right to defend themselves, and handguns are by far the best way for smaller, physically weaker innocent people (women, please note) to protect themselves from larger, stronger bad people. (If all guns were to disappear, who would gain the advantage?)

Finally, it is unappreciated that along with increasingly wider gun ownership and liberalized concealed-carry laws, violent crime has been declining for years. The Aurora tragedy should not overshadow that happy fact.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/26/dont-let-the-aurora-shooting-curtail-the

I'll be the first to say that I though I disagree with gun registration (for a number of reasons), I am strongly in favor of increased background checks and mandatory training classes. There is NEVER going to be a perfect way, not even in the UK. I'm also hesitant to accept them as the standard for gun control arguments, because there are places in the states that are as safe from gun crime as any where in the world, and there are also some of the most dangerous inner city ghettos. It is such a large and diverse country that national statistics are incredibly misleading. Its like analysing gun stats for all of Europe.

I stand firm that banning all handguns and firearms will not solve a thing. In a perfect world, maybe...but not ours. If anything, I think it would make matters worse for a lot of people. The second article I posted here explains why in better words than I ever could.

SteelCityMom
08-06-2012, 08:48 PM
Well, since Ric won't argue with me for my birthday, I'll just keep flapping my gums. :chuckle:

Found these articles interesting...

Gun Deaths in the United States
Gun Crime, Homicides, and a Debate Raging in America

Read more at Suite101: Gun Deaths in the United States: Gun Crime, Homicides, and a Debate Raging in America | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/gun-deaths-in-the-united-states-a140507#ixzz22oi5w29Q

Self-Defense Involving a Firearm
When Guns Are Used to Stop Crimes Rather than Commit Them

Read more at Suite101: Self-Defense Involving a Firearm: When Guns Are Used to Stop Crimes Rather than Commit Them | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/selfdefense-involving-a-firearm-a140512#ixzz22ohzrGZY

Atlanta Dan
08-06-2012, 08:59 PM
Drudge points to the obvious culprit

INDIA BLAMES WHITE HOUSE FOR SHOOTING

http://www.drudgereport.com/

tony hipchest
08-06-2012, 10:58 PM
again, i think the uber right wing extremist NRA militia conservatives love muslim terrorism because it detracts from the privitization of the US prison system, the billions of $$$ made introducing and importing crack to the inner cities, legislation such as manditory minimums and "3K youre out", the filling of said prisons, billions (if not trillion) dumped into the failed war on drugs, the exportation of firearms, and now the muslim wool blanket being pulled over the eyes shielding the US from the other legitimate terrorism thes policies have created in our own back yard.

no wonder they dont want drugs legalized. the whole house of cards and pyramid scheme comes crashing down.

ricardisimo
08-07-2012, 12:14 AM
Well, since Ric won't argue with me for my birthday, I'll just keep flapping my gums. :chuckle:

Found these articles interesting...

Gun Deaths in the United States
Gun Crime, Homicides, and a Debate Raging in America

Read more at Suite101: Gun Deaths in the United States: Gun Crime, Homicides, and a Debate Raging in America | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/gun-deaths-in-the-united-states-a140507#ixzz22oi5w29Q

Self-Defense Involving a Firearm
When Guns Are Used to Stop Crimes Rather than Commit Them

Read more at Suite101: Self-Defense Involving a Firearm: When Guns Are Used to Stop Crimes Rather than Commit Them | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/selfdefense-involving-a-firearm-a140512#ixzz22ohzrGZY
It's your birthday. Whatever you say, Mom.

Seriously, I'll pick this up tomorrow. Work beckons. Just here checking for spam.
:spam:

Vis
08-07-2012, 11:43 AM
Wisconsin Sikh Gurdwara Shooter Talked of ‘Racial Holy War’

by Julianne Hing, Tuesday, August 7 2012, 11:15 AM EST


The more authorities find out about Wade Michael Page, the man who shot and killed six people at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin on Sunday, the worse it gets.

Christopher Robillard, who told CNN Page was his “closest friend” when the two were in the military, said that Page talked often about a “racial holy war.”

“He would talk about the racial holy war, like he wanted it to come,” Robillard said. “But to me, he didn’t seem like the type of person to go out and hurt people.”

Page was trained as a psychological warfare specialist and rose to the rank of sergeant before he was discharged for showing up to formation drunk. Robillard nonetheless said Page as a “very kind, very smart individual.”

Authorities also know that Page fronted a white supremacist band. They know that Page was once in the military, before he was discharged. They know that the he was tattooed with the logo of Stormfront, an online community of white supremacists.

For many, those pieces of information are enough to settle the whys of Page’s brutal last act. But authorities insist they are continuing to look into Page’s motives for an act they’re investigating as domestic terrorism.

MACH1
08-07-2012, 11:57 AM
I would think this is more along the lines of a hate crime rather than domestic terrorist.

Vis
08-07-2012, 11:58 AM
I would think this is more along the lines of a hate crime rather than domestic terrorist.


I bet they are worried about others being involved who might have further plans.

ricardisimo
08-08-2012, 02:02 AM
Whatever you call it, the whole thing is just awful. Those poor people. Maybe it's because I'm drunk right now, but I just can't fathom losing, say, my kids like that.

It seems more clearly a hate crime, but if he was part of a group with an agenda, then terrorizing that segment of the population seems like more of an object than killing them all, which he surely knew he couldn't do, no matter what military training he had... or rather because of that training.