British soldier hacked to death after being run over with car

[Boosted FC]

This is a sickening world we live in....Cameron condemns brutal hacking death, says Britain stands firm - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/world/europe/london-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

:no:

[ISAtlanta300]

The worse thing is that all everybody else could do was stand and gawk.....

[David88vert]

The worse thing is that all everybody else could do was stand and gawk.....

Britain oulawed guns, and none of them wanted to confront two armed men (one of which had a revolver), when they themselves are not allowed to carry weapons for defense.

[bu villain]

C'mon David don't make this about gun laws. Two homicidal guys wanted to kill someone in public to make a point. No gun law would have stopped this.

[-EnVus-]

Britain oulawed guns, and none of them wanted to confront two armed men (one of which had a revolver), when they themselves are not allowed to carry weapons for defense.
Id have to say armies just using stick and rocks have won over swords so many versus 2 yeah.....WTF!

[BanginJimmy]

C'mon David don't make this about gun laws. Two homicidal guys wanted to kill someone in public to make a point. No gun law would have stopped this.

It was a valid response to the statement he quoted. I sure as hell am not getting involved with 2 armed men bent on murder if I dont hold some type of serious advantage.

[David88vert]

C'mon David don't make this about gun laws. Two homicidal guys wanted to kill someone in public to make a point. No gun law would have stopped this.

Gun laws prevented any legal citizens from carrying and being able to respond to these two - that's fact. These two ran the guy down first with the car. They didn't just cut him first. While we will never know for certain if the result could have been different if someone had a legal firearm, we can say that there could have been a possibility at least.


Id have to say armies just using stick and rocks have won over swords so many versus 2 yeah.....WTF!

So, you think that the unarmed crowd should have attacked 2 guys that were armed with a gun, a car, and several large knives, and had already shown that they were looking to kill?

Remember - none of these people had any weapons, and were still in shock from seeing these guys almost hack the guy's head off.

[-EnVus-]

Gun laws prevented any legal citizens from carrying and being able to respond to these two - that's fact. These two ran the guy down first with the car. They didn't just cut him first. While we will never know for certain if the result could have been different if someone had a legal firearm, we can say that there could have been a possibility at least.



So, you think that the unarmed crowd should have attacked 2 guys that were armed with a gun, a car, and several large knives, and had already shown that they were looking to kill?

Remember - none of these people had any weapons, and were still in shock from seeing these guys almost hack the guy's head off.
Well since the record shows they basically wanted to die since they didn't leave or want to then no. I can't help wonder though what was stopping someone from driving a car over the suspects. I guess no one living near by had a rifle to use those are legal and would have helped.

[David88vert]

Well since the record shows they basically wanted to die since they didn't leave or want to then no. I can't help wonder though what was stopping someone from driving a car over the suspects. I guess no one living near by had a rifle to use those are legal and would have helped.

It's not easy to have a rifle there with their current laws, and how many people carry around rifles with them - even here, where it's much easier? I don't, do you? Shotguns are easier to get in the UK, but are usually only used by farmers in rural areas.

[-EnVus-]

It's not easy to have a rifle there with their current laws, and how many people carry around rifles with them - even here, where it's much easier? I don't, do you? Shotguns are easier to get in the UK, but are usually only used by farmers in rural areas.
ok ok ok how about the running the suspects down with a car ?

[David88vert]

ok ok ok how about the running the suspects down with a car ?

Have you watched the footage? I haven't seen any cars drive on the street and it was blocked on one end. There is a bus farther down the street and a lorry near the body, and that is what the woman that confronted them got off of.

[Sinfix_15]

C'mon David don't make this about gun laws. Two homicidal guys wanted to kill someone in public to make a point. No gun law would have stopped this.

A gun did stop it. Luckily the guy didnt want to kill anymore people, because he would have been able to do so as he pleased...... that is.... until someone with a gun showed up, which is exactly when it stopped.

[bu villain]

Gun laws prevented any legal citizens from carrying and being able to respond to these two - that's fact. These two ran the guy down first with the car. They didn't just cut him first. While we will never know for certain if the result could have been different if someone had a legal firearm, we can say that there could have been a possibility at least.


A gun did stop it. Luckily the guy didnt want to kill anymore people, because he would have been able to do so as he pleased...... that is.... until someone with a gun showed up, which is exactly when it stopped.

Well as long as we are dealing with hypothetical scenarios, how about the scenario where these two guys simply walked up to him on that street and shot him in the head. One guy did have a revolver right? You can't just pick the situations where guns could have helped and make a conclusion about the validity of gun laws for a country, you also have to consider the situations where they cause more damage or wouldn't have helped.

[David88vert]

Well as long as we are dealing with hypothetical scenarios, how about the scenario where these two guys simply walked up to him on that street and shot him in the head. One guy did have a revolver right? You can't just pick the situations where guns could have helped and make a conclusion about the validity of gun laws for a country, you also have to consider the situations where they cause more damage or wouldn't have helped.

Well, if you want the hypothetical to be in this situation - the guy with the revolver did attempt to fire it at the cops. Reports are that it was rusty and blew up in his hand, destroying one of his fingers. So, if they had tried to shoot the guy first, he might still be alive.
That's not what you want to hear, but we can't always get what we want.

[bu villain]

Well, if you want the hypothetical to be in this situation - the guy with the revolver did attempt to fire it at the cops. Reports are that it was rusty and blew up in his hand, destroying one of his fingers. So, if they had tried to shoot the guy first, he might still be alive.
That's not what you want to hear, but we can't always get what we want.

My whole point is that these hypothetical scenarios, whether I like them or not, are pointless. You can invent hypotheticals that support your view (which you have done here) just as I can invent them to support the opposite view. It's all just mental masturbation and isn't particularly helpful for determining the validity of gun laws.

[bu villain]

Maybe a clearer way to state this is:

Sandy Hook doesn't mean we should ban guns
This murder in London doesn't mean Britain should allow guns

[David88vert]

My whole point is that these hypothetical scenarios, whether I like them or not, are pointless. You can invent hypotheticals that support your view (which you have done here) just as I can invent them to support the opposite view. It's all just mental masturbation and isn't particularly helpful for determining the validity of gun laws.

I based my statements off the known facts of the situation. Read the reports and tell me if I have incorrectly stated anything. I know that I have not.

[David88vert]

Maybe a clearer way to state this is:

Sandy Hook doesn't mean we should ban guns
This murder in London doesn't mean Britain should allow guns

I agree with both statements.

[bu villain]

I based my statements off the known facts of the situation. Read the reports and tell me if I have incorrectly stated anything. I know that I have not.

I'm not questioning your facts. I am questioning the relevance of UK's gun laws in light of this incident. I don't see them as particularly relevant.


I agree with both statements.

Then why even bring up UK's gun laws?

[David88vert]

I'm not questioning your facts. I am questioning the relevance of UK's gun laws in light of this incident. I don't see them as particularly relevant.

Then why even bring up UK's gun laws?

A gun was involved in the incident.
An attack on a soldier (who is trained to use firearms) and hsi subsequent public murder was the incident.
It took officers 30 minutes to respond, according to some of the people who witnessed the attack. During that time, the attackers could have take the opportunity to kill multiple others if they had chosen to, and the citizens would not have been able to meet deadly force equally.
If the police are not there to defend the citizens, why take away their ability to defend themselves?
One item to note - I have been to England and London before the gun ban, and even then, guns were not as prevalent there, as we see them here. They just aren't a "gun society", so in all honesty, I doubt any of the civilians would have been carrying a gun, even if it was legal (and easy).

[Sinfix_15]

Well as long as we are dealing with hypothetical scenarios, how about the scenario where these two guys simply walked up to him on that street and shot him in the head. One guy did have a revolver right? You can't just pick the situations where guns could have helped and make a conclusion about the validity of gun laws for a country, you also have to consider the situations where they cause more damage or wouldn't have helped.

But you can cherry pick the crimes committed with guns???????????

If guns are evil and cant be controlled by their owner, then police, military ect should not have guns. If a gun is just a tool and only does what it's told.... sweet.... no reason i cant have one.

[bu villain]

I cherry picked with the stated intent to show that it is not a valid way to make a policy decision. That was the whole point. Guns are only tools (albeit powerful and dangerous ones) and are sometimes controlled properly and sometimes not. That is why the ideological debate over guns goes nowhere. Don't base gun policy on cherry picked anecdotes, particularly hypothetical ones. I don't care which side of the issue you are on.

Trying to turn this incident into a discussion on guns still doesn't make much sense to me either. If someone wants to have a gun debate, you can find a lot better conversation starters than a knifing incident in London.

[Sinfix_15]

I cherry picked with the stated intent to show that it is not a valid way to make a policy decision. That was the whole point. Guns are only tools (albeit powerful and dangerous ones) and are sometimes controlled properly and sometimes not. That is why the ideological debate over guns goes nowhere. Don't base gun policy on cherry picked anecdotes, particularly hypothetical ones. I don't care which side of the issue you are on.

Trying to turn this incident into a discussion on guns still doesn't make much sense to me either. If someone wants to have a gun debate, you can find a lot better conversation starters than a knifing incident in London.

The debate over guns should only involve what to do with criminals who misuse them. As a law abiding citizen, i'm tired of listening to politicians talk as if theyre entitled to take my rights away.

This is a perfectly fine topic for discussing the usefulness of gun ownership. If democrats had their way, i could potentially be one of those people standing helplessly in the streets as criminals have free reign to decide who they do or do not want to kill. London is often used as example of how great gun control is and why we shouldnt oppose it.

[bu villain]

This is a perfectly fine topic for discussing the usefulness of gun ownership. If democrats had their way, i could potentially be one of those people standing helplessly in the streets as criminals have free reign to decide who they do or do not want to kill. London is often used as example of how great gun control is and why we shouldnt oppose it.

First of all, having a gun will not necessarily prevent you from being killed in the street. Second, this incident doesn't prove that gun control isn't a good policy either here or in the UK. If you really want to make this incident about guns, how about using it to illustrate that you don't need a gun to murder someone. At least that is a factual statement proven by this case and not some hypothetical scenario implying looser gun laws would have prevented this attack.

[Sinfix_15]

First of all, having a gun will not necessarily prevent you from being killed in the street. Second, this incident doesn't prove that gun control isn't a good policy either here or in the UK. If you really want to make this incident about guns, how about using it to illustrate that you don't need a gun to murder someone. At least that is a factual statement proven by this case and not some hypothetical scenario implying looser gun laws would have prevented this attack.

Nothing guarantees that you will not be "killed in the street", but having a gun puts my life in my own hands. Sitting behind a desk, behind a door, in a building surrounded by armed security, politicians think they have the right to strip you of your ability to defend yourself and tell you to rely on the police for your protection. You're right.... a gun will not prevent you from being killed in the street, neither will a cop.... or a "gun free zone" sign.....

It's not about guns preventing crimes, it's about each individual person having the right to defend themselves.

[.blank cd]

Is the right to defend yourself being stripped now?

When did this happen?

[Sinfix_15]

Is the right to defend yourself being stripped now?

When did this happen?

If that chicago thug you voted for got what he wanted. Thankfully we have organizations like the NRA defending our rights. Thankfully congress shoots down everything this clown wants to do.

[.blank cd]

What Chicago thug did I vote for? I didn't vote for any Chicago thug

[Sinfix_15]

What Chicago thug did I vote for? I didn't vote for any Chicago thug



http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s268/Virtutis/obama55_zps196b7013.jpg (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/Virtutis/media/obama55_zps196b7013.jpg.html)

[Sinfix_15]

Dont anybody start stereotyping these people though.... wouldnt want to offend anyone or hurt any feelings....
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BLZIJDGCYAA524J.jpg:large

[.blank cd]

Dont anybody start stereotyping these people though.... wouldnt want to offend anyone or hurt any feelings....
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BLZIJDGCYAA524J.jpg:large

Profiling someone for what they believe in based on the sign they're holding?

[David88vert]

Profiling someone for what they believe in based on the sign they're holding?

Maybe Sinfix can read.
UK Islamist Leader: Islam Will Dominate America - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/August/UK-Islamist-Leader-Islam-Will-Dominate-America/)

"I am convinced, I am 100 percent certain that the sharia will be implemented in America and in Britain one day. The question is, 'when?' and how it will come to fruition." - Anjem Choudary

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/europe/13britain.html?_r=0

Muslims who called British soldiers 'rapists', 'cowards' and 'scum' were exercising freedom of speech, court hears | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242335/Muslims-called-British-soldiers-rapists-cowards-scum-exercising-freedom-speech-court-hears.html)

It's not profiling when they proclaim it themselves. I don't think that you know what profiling is.

[.blank cd]

LOL. Ahh. The irony.

[.blank cd]

It's not profiling when they proclaim it themselves. I don't think that you know what profiling is.

Or to put it bluntly: "It's not profiling when its something I'm scared of."

I know what profiling is. It's pretty clear that you might not.

[David88vert]

Or to put it bluntly: "It's not profiling when its something I'm scared of."

I know what profiling is. It's pretty clear that you might not.


You always claim you know everything, but again and again, you show that you do not.

Reality is this simple - the group of radical Muslims in the photo in the UK stated exactly what they meant. It is not a hidden agenda, and in this case, the photo explains their exact position. You can try to claim that people are targeting them, or extrapolating truths if you like, but you will be wrong. Take their message at face value - just as they have stated it - and that is not profiling - it is a clear statement of belief, not needing any additional analysis.

We all know that the majority of Muslims are not radicals like this particular group in the photo. Most of us here seem to realize that there are radicals though that mean to implement their will upon the rest of us - except you who seems unable to comprehend this simple concept.

[Sinfix_15]

Or to put it bluntly: "It's not profiling when its something I'm scared of."

I know what profiling is. It's pretty clear that you might not.

I honestly do not think it's humanly possible for you to be a bigger douche.

[Sinfix_15]

Here is my feeling towards the matter.

An unknown % of muslims are extreme radical terrorists that are so hell bent on causing havoc that they will gladly end their own life just to do harm to another.
This truth is undeniable. It's not hidden, it's not a conspiracy.... it's as true as the sun coming up tomorrow.
However large or small you feel this % of radical muslims may be.... they have accounted for 1000s of american deaths. They do it boldly and in plane view as an act of war.

My guard is up with muslims.

[Sinfix_15]

In addition to that..... our principles as a country is why we allow muslims to come here, even though there is clearly a recognized danger of doing so. Collectively, we feel it's the right thing to do. People are innocent until proven guilty, regardless of their religion. People have freedom, regardless of their religion or background.

Freedom is and always has been dangerous. As long as this danger is present, americans should not only be allowed.... but be encouraged to own guns.

When the danger of freedom is ever taken away...... well that's the original reason to own a gun.

So raise a drink to the dangerous united states of america.... and make sure it always stays that way.

[David88vert]

Here is my feeling towards the matter.

An unknown % of muslims are extreme radical terrorists that are so hell bent on causing havoc that they will gladly end their own life just to do harm to another.
This truth is undeniable. It's not hidden, it's not a conspiracy.... it's as true as the sun coming up tomorrow.
However large or small you feel this % of radical muslims may be.... they have accounted for 1000s of american deaths. They do it boldly and in plane view as an act of war.

My guard is up with muslims.

Radical Christians (or any other group - not necessarily religious) can be just as dangerous as Muslims.
If your guard is always up, you will never have the opportunity to show others that we can live peacefully, and have tolerance for others.

[Sinfix_15]

Radical Christians (or any other group - not necessarily religious) can be just as dangerous as Muslims.
If your guard is always up, you will never have the opportunity to show others that we can live peacefully, and have tolerance for others.

And in the period of time when christians appeared to be on a course of world domination, i would have treated them with equal reservations. Anyone who is offended by my caution enough to prevent us from "living peacefully", i have no desire to live peaceful with. I have tolerance for everyone.... i dont project my inner feelings on everyone i come in contact with, i just chose to be honest about how i feel here. I'm not walking the street pointing my finger at muslims..... but i am internally cautious around anyone i feel deserves that recognition.

[Sinfix_15]

I apply the same rule to everyone...... one night i was coming home late and a cop turned his light on me on a back road, i put my flashers on, slowed down and drove about 5 miles to the nearest gas station to pull over. By the time i got to the gas station i had 3 cars behind me. The cops probably would have approached my car guns drawn, but since i always do the right hand up, left hand out the window thing, they approached somewhat normal. It also helped that i had a puppy sitting in my lap. Cop walks up and says "why didnt you stop man, we thought you were gonna run"

I said to the cop " i dont trust you anymore than you trust me, i feel safer stopping in a well lit area"

cop originally was stopping me for doing 50 in a 35, they talked to me for a minute, pet my puppy, commended me on my stopping etiquette and sent me on my way with no ticket.

the type of cop that is the reason i do not trust cops would have been offended by my actions. If you're offended by my caution, that makes me even more cautious.

[bu villain]

Nothing guarantees that you will not be "killed in the street", but having a gun puts my life in my own hands. Sitting behind a desk, behind a door, in a building surrounded by armed security, politicians think they have the right to strip you of your ability to defend yourself and tell you to rely on the police for your protection. You're right.... a gun will not prevent you from being killed in the street, neither will a cop.... or a "gun free zone" sign.....

It's not about guns preventing crimes, it's about each individual person having the right to defend themselves.

How can you say "a gun will not prevent you from being killed in the street" and "having a gun puts my life in my own hands". Those are contradictory. More often than not, a gun provides people with the illusion of security, not actual security. Guns can prevent violence but they can also cause it. I think people should be allowed to own guns, including assault rifles, but I believe statistics show it won't make them any safer.

[David88vert]

I apply the same rule to everyone...... one night i was coming home late and a cop turned his light on me on a back road, i put my flashers on, slowed down and drove about 5 miles to the nearest gas station to pull over. By the time i got to the gas station i had 3 cars behind me. The cops probably would have approached my car guns drawn, but since i always do the right hand up, left hand out the window thing, they approached somewhat normal. It also helped that i also had a puppy sitting in my lap. Cop walks up and says "why didnt you stop man, we thought you were gonna run"

I said to the cop " i dont trust you anymore than you trust me, i feel safer stopping in a well lit area"

cop originally was stopping me for doing 50 in a 35, they talked to me for a minute, pet my puppy, commended me on my stopping etiquette and sent me on my way with no ticket.

the type of cop that is the reason i do not trust cops would have been offended by my actions. If you're offended by my caution, that makes me even more cautious.

Do you think that your life is better with an isolationist ideology?

I can say this - if I had your outlook, I would not have my wife, kids, job, friends, or toys. All of these came from expressly embracing other cultures and viewpoints.

[bu villain]

I apply the same rule to everyone......

My question is, how does your distrust of Muslims manifest itself? A cop has authority over you in certain situations (e.g., pulling you over) so I understand that scenario. But given that being Muslim doesn't give them any authority over you, what actions do you take based on your fear? Do you think your fear is justified given the miniscule probability of you being the victim of a radical muslim's attack? Do you treat other threats with similar likelihoods the same way?

[Sinfix_15]

How can you say "a gun will not prevent you from being killed in the street" and "having a gun puts my life in my own hands". Those are contradictory. More often than not, a gun provides people with the illusion of security, not actual security. Guns can prevent violence but they can also cause it. I think people should be allowed to own guns, including assault rifles, but I believe statistics show it won't make them any safer.

Putting a hammer in your hand is no guarantee that you can build a house with it. A gun is a tool i can use to defend myself. Possessing that tool doesnt guarantee my success with it. However i chose to defend myself puts my life in my own hands. If i chose to use karate, my personal charm, a financial bribe... a stick... ect ect.... having the choice to fight back puts "my life in my own hands". It doesnt guarantee that i will be victorious.

If you chose to believe "statistics" that say a gun wont make you any safer.... that's your choice to be an idiot, you are free to make that choice.

[David88vert]

How can you say "a gun will not prevent you from being killed in the street" and "having a gun puts my life in my own hands". Those are contradictory.

I disagree - they are not contradictory.
Having a gun does not guarantee that one will not be killed by a gun or other means; however, it does mean that you have an opportunity to resist with a defensive weapon that should generally be on par with an aggressor's weapon. It can help you prevent being a defenseless victim in man circumstances and scenarios - but that is not the same as ALL circumstances and scenarios.


More often than not, a gun provides people with the illusion of security, not actual security. Guns can prevent violence but they can also cause it. I think people should be allowed to own guns, including assault rifles, but I believe statistics show it won't make them any safer.

I agree with this part. Guns are merely a tool - the individual must have the capability and judgment to know when to use the correct tool - and when to leave it alone.

[David88vert]

My question is, how does your distrust of Muslims manifest itself? A cop has authority over you in certain situations (e.g., pulling you over) so I understand that scenario. But given that being Muslim doesn't give them any authority over you, what actions do you take based on your fear? Do you think your fear is justified given the miniscule probability of you being the victim of a radical muslim's attack? Do you treat other threats with similar likelihoods the same way?

Good questions.

[David88vert]

If you chose to believe "statistics" that say a gun wont make you any safer.... that's your choice to be an idiot, you are free to make that choice.

I disagree with you that choosing not to have a gun is equitable with being an idiot.

The need for the tool depends on the situation and location.
For example, where I live, the likelihood that I will need a firearm to defend myself against a terrorist or anyone else is an extremely small risk. I do not see a need to carry a firearm with me when I go grocery shopping, or to get gas, or anything else around my home. I choose to live in a fairly safe area, that has a fairly low crime rate; therefore, I do not see the need to carry a gun with me on a daily basis. If one feels the need to carry on a daily basis, they might want to assess their location and actions, and find a way to lower their risk level.

[Sinfix_15]

Do you think that your life is better with an isolationist ideology?

I can say this - if I had your outlook, I would not have my wife, kids, job, friends, or toys. All of these came from expressly embracing other cultures and viewpoints.

It's not isolationism..... i dont avoid anyone or any activity. I just chose to be more aware of dangers. I'm OCD about being aware of my surroundings. It's not something you would notice or something i bring to anyone's attention in public. I can be sitting at a bar drinking and laughing and i just subconsciously make a note of where exits are, if someone has their hands in their pockets or is reaching for something, if someone is eyeballing someone... just any little thing like that i observe and think about. I do it every day at every place i go.

Lets say i'm jogging at the park and 5 black guys are walking in my path towards me. in my mind i start scanning the scenario, are they wearing sportswear? do they look like they belong in the area, is anyone of them paying too much attention to me, do they look like they have anything in their pockets, anyone reaching in their pockets, are they talking to each other, do they look like theyre going to speak to me... ect ect....

My reaction to that situation might be as simple as moving to the side of the path or saying something to them before theyre close to me like "hey guys, hows it goin" then based on their response i might re-evaluate again. Did they notice me moving to the side of the path, if so did they adjust their path, when i spoke out did they react in an unusual way....

This is just how my mind works. I cant turn it off. I dont isolate myself from any group of people or activity. I go to inner city parks and play basketball, go to the riverwalk, camp grounds or anywhere else i want to go.... i'm just always "aware" of what's around me. Some things get my attention more than others.


One of these people alarms me more than the other. If that's wrong, i dont want to be right.
http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/jenius_0-e1346792888945.jpg?w=450&h=317
http://comp.webstockpro.com/iloveimages/lv14520054.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

I disagree with you that choosing not to have a gun is equitable with being an idiot.

The need for the tool depends on the situation and location.
For example, where I live, the likelihood that I will need a firearm to defend myself against a terrorist or anyone else is an extremely small risk. I do not see a need to carry a firearm with me when I go grocery shopping, or to get gas, or anything else around my home. I choose to live in a fairly safe area, that has a fairly low crime rate; therefore, I do not see the need to carry a gun with me on a daily basis. If one feels the need to carry on a daily basis, they might want to assess their location and actions, and find a way to lower their risk level.

I agree.... slight misinterpretation of what i said..... "If you chose to believe the statistic" regarding your own safety.....

My evaluation of what is needed to defend myself is based on my observation of risk alone. I dont care what statistics say about my city if i feel unsafe.

[Sinfix_15]

My question is, how does your distrust of Muslims manifest itself? A cop has authority over you in certain situations (e.g., pulling you over) so I understand that scenario. But given that being Muslim doesn't give them any authority over you, what actions do you take based on your fear? Do you think your fear is justified given the miniscule probability of you being the victim of a radical muslim's attack? Do you treat other threats with similar likelihoods the same way?

I think i answered this question before i realized you asked it. If not, i will reiterate.

[bu villain]

Putting a hammer in your hand is no guarantee that you can build a house with it. A gun is a tool i can use to defend myself. Possessing that tool doesnt guarantee my success with it. However i chose to defend myself puts my life in my own hands. If i chose to use karate, my personal charm, a financial bribe... a stick... ect ect.... having the choice to fight back puts "my life in my own hands". It doesnt guarantee that i will be victorious.

As you state, you can fight back without a gun which is why I was questioning your previous statement that having a gun allows you to "put your life in your own hands" as if not having a gun means your life is suddenly out of your own hands. Obviously a gun can be a powerful self defense tool, I just don't like it being paraded around as a magic wand that stops crime and prevents violence. It would also be great if you would acknowledge the negative possibilities of guns even if you believe the positives outweigh them.


If you chose to believe "statistics" that say a gun wont make you any safer.... that's your choice to be an idiot, you are free to make that choice.

Why does that make me an idiot? Perhaps I have not seen the same statistics as you. Perhaps you could link me to some so that I can reconsider my position. Keep in mind, my support of gun ownership is based on principle and not safety but if the statistics back up that principle then all the better.


I disagree - they are not contradictory.
Having a gun does not guarantee that one will not be killed by a gun or other means; however, it does mean that you have an opportunity to resist with a defensive weapon that should generally be on par with an aggressor's weapon. It can help you prevent being a defenseless victim in man circumstances and scenarios - but that is not the same as ALL circumstances and scenarios.

If Sinflix had made that distinction I wouldn't have said anything but his wording implied that without a gun, you are no longer in control of your life. It's often his hyperbole and one sided presentation that causes me problems, even when I agree to some extent with his basic idea.

[bu villain]

I agree.... slight misinterpretation of what i said..... "If you chose to believe the statistic" regarding your own safety.....

My evaluation of what is needed to defend myself is based on my observation of risk alone. I dont care what statistics say about my city if i feel unsafe.

So you are saying having a gun makes you feel safer psychologically.


I think i answered this question before i realized you asked it. If not, i will reiterate.

You answered most of it but I do want to mention that a random Muslim person on the street is thousands of times more likely to be a threat on the level with the bottom picture than the top one. So the only question I would still like to hear your answer about is... is your level of fear/awareness of Muslims, proportional to the likelihood that they cause harm to you?

Sorry I lied, a follow up set of questions. How do you even know if someone is Muslim? If you saw the black guy who murdered the soldier in London, would you have known he was Muslim? How about the Boston bombers? Do you think someone wearing traditional Muslim clothing is more likely to cause you harm than someone who is not?

[David88vert]

One of these people alarms me more than the other. If that's wrong, i dont want to be right.
http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/jenius_0-e1346792888945.jpg?w=450&h=317
http://comp.webstockpro.com/iloveimages/lv14520054.jpg

Obviously, the black guy is no one to worry about. He is a "Genius", and has been gracious enough to tattoo it on his forehead so that people with lesser intellects will realize it and not be afraid of him just because he is black.

The woman with the baby is the one that you should be concerned about. She will divorce you and take more than half your stuff.

[Sinfix_15]

As you state, you can fight back without a gun which is why I was questioning your previous statement that having a gun allows you to "put your life in your own hands" as if not having a gun means your life is suddenly out of your own hands. Obviously a gun can be a powerful self defense tool, I just don't like it being paraded around as a magic wand that stops crime and prevents violence. It would also be great if you would acknowledge the negative possibilities of guns even if you believe the positives outweigh them.



Why does that make me an idiot? Perhaps I have not seen the same statistics as you. Perhaps you could link me to some so that I can reconsider my position. Keep in mind, my support of gun ownership is based on principle and not safety but if the statistics back up that principle then all the better.



If Sinflix had made that distinction I wouldn't have said anything but his wording implied that without a gun, you are no longer in control of your life. It's often his hyperbole and one sided presentation that causes me problems, even when I agree to some extent with his basic idea.

I'll use this example. Lets say you work at a GM auto plant that employs 2000 people. The injury rate is pretty low, lets say only 2 people get injured a year. Would GM stop doing safety training or project the idea that you're safe at work because only 2 people got injured? Statistically, you would have less than a 1% chance of being injured, right?

My approach to that is that even if something bad only happens to 1 person in the entire world, that 1 person could be me and i want to prevent it. No statistic is "the bible" for my decision making process. I consider statistics, but also recognize their flaw.

[bu villain]

I'll use this example. Lets say you work at a GM auto plant that employs 2000 people. The injury rate is pretty low, lets say only 2 people get injured a year. Would GM stop doing safety training or project the idea that you're safe at work because only 2 people got injured? Statistically, you would have less than a 1% chance of being injured, right?

My approach to that is that even if something bad only happens to 1 person in the entire world, that 1 person could be me and i want to prevent it. No statistic is "the bible" for my decision making process. I consider statistics, but also recognize their flaw.

Yes but your GM example is only true because it's hard to believe safety training could lead to more injuries. Guns on the other hand do not have such an asymmetrical safety profile. They can make you safer in some situations and less safe in others. I agree statistics must be put in an individuals context to be used effectively. This is the point David was making regarding living in a relatively dangerous area versus a relatively safe area. Public policy however should be more influenced by statistics than by individual circumstances because it is unfeasible to create laws that handle all the intricacies of individual circumstances. It is still an imperfect approach but it is far better than basing policy on anecdotes.

[Sinfix_15]

So you are saying having a gun makes you feel safer psychologically.



You answered most of it but I do want to mention that a random Muslim person on the street is thousands of times more likely to be a threat on the level with the bottom picture than the top one. So the only question I would still like to hear your answer about is... is your level of fear/awareness of Muslims, proportional to the likelihood that they cause harm to you?

Sorry I lied, a follow up set of questions. How do you even know if someone is Muslim? If you saw the black guy who murdered the soldier in London, would you have known he was Muslim? How about the Boston bombers? Do you think someone wearing traditional Muslim clothing is more likely to cause you harm than someone who is not?

My methods are not scientific nor foolproof. The context of the encounter would have a lot to do with it. "how do i even know if someone is a muslim" i dont... appearance wise i would associate it with looking "middle eastern". If i walk into a store and see someone with a turban on, my reaction isnt "OMG HES GOT A BOMB". I might give someone who fits that description a 2nd glance.... if they looked wide eyed, lost, nervous or out of place... that would be something that got my attention. Hard to say with the boston bombers, people's mannerisms are easier to gauge in person. I would like to think had i of been one of the people standing near them, i would have noticed them dropping their packs.

Muslim does not have an identifiable trait that i am aware of. I pay more attention to anyone who "sticks out", if upon paying more attention to any given person, they act unusual or look sketchy, my reaction to them escalates from that point. That doesnt mean i intervene with anyone, i may simply alter my path. If i'm standing at a bus stop and two middle eastern men who appear nervous and/or agitated are waiting for the bus, i would pay more attention to them. If theyre carrying backpacks or unidentifiable objects, i may decide not to get on that bus. I'm not going to tackle them and search their backpack, but i have the freedom to make my own choices and be as "paranoid" as i chose to be. My actions do not interfere with anyone else's life. If my opinion of someone offends them, really dont give a fuck.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes but your GM example is only true because it's hard to believe safety training could lead to more injuries. Guns on the other hand do not have such an asymmetrical safety profile. They can make you safer in some situations and less safe in others. I agree statistics must be put in an individuals context to be used effectively. This is the point David was making regarding living in a relatively dangerous area versus a relatively safe area. Public policy however should be more influenced by statistics than by individual circumstances because it is unfeasible to create laws that handle all the intricacies of individual circumstances. It is still an imperfect approach but it is far better than basing policy on anecdotes.

This is where you and i are different. You feel, basically... that the government should "do the best it can" with some laws... and i feel that the government should simply step away from some laws. My right to self defense and survival is not open to legislation.

[.blank cd]

My right to self defense and survival is not open to legislation.

It isn't. Nor is it up for legislation.

[bu villain]

"how do i even know if someone is a muslim" i dont... appearance wise i would associate it with looking "middle eastern"

And hopefully you see that as the more you generalize, the less relation your generalization has to reality. There are a billion muslims in the world, they come in many colors, and from many different countries. Only a tiny fraction of them pose any sort of a threat to you. And yet you will be more suspicious of people who look middle eastern simply because that is an association you make in your mind. These sort of associations may be natural to the human mind, but that doesn't make them valid.


i have the freedom to make my own choices and be as "paranoid" as i chose to be. My actions do not interfere with anyone else's life. If my opinion of someone offends them, really dont give a fuck.

And that's fine as long as you understand it is paranoia and not particularly rational. Unfortunately many people's irrational fear of all muslims/middle easterners does have an impact on others lives.


This is where you and i are different. You feel, basically... that the government should "do the best it can" with some laws... and i feel that the government should simply step away from some laws. My right to self defense and survival is not up for legislation.

This is the kind of hyperbole I was talking about before. Saying you can't buy an assault rifle or an extended clip is not legislating away your right to self defense. You still have sticks, karate, hand guns, and all those other things to mentioned before. Again, I actually agree with you that we shouldn't legislate clip size or whether a rifle has a handle or not but it's just for different reasons than you.

[Sinfix_15]

And hopefully you see that as the more you generalize, the less relation your generalization has to reality. There are a billion muslims in the world, they come in many colors, and from many different countries. Only a tiny fraction of them pose any sort of a threat to you. And yet you will be more suspicious of people who look middle eastern simply because that is an association you make in your mind. These sort of associations may be natural to the human mind, but that doesn't make them valid.

And some of those muslims have decided to kill 1000s of americans. They do it proudly, openly and with little regard for human life. You acknowledge that i cant distinguish between the good and the bad, yet you tell me to assume theyre all good and then proclaim it's logical.




And that's fine as long as you understand it is paranoia and not particularly rational. Unfortunately many people's irrational fear of all muslims/middle easterners does have an impact on others lives.

I cant control the world, i can only control myself. Hurting a stranger's feelings just isnt high on my priority list, apologies. Paranoia is not the right word. I do not fear them, nor am i delusional about the presence of danger. Being aware of risk does not mean that i exaggerate it.




This is the kind of hyperbole I was talking about before. Saying you can't buy an assault rifle or an extended clip is not legislating away your right to self defense. You still have sticks, karate, hand guns, and all those other things to mentioned before. Again, I actually agree with you that we shouldn't legislate clip size or whether a rifle has a handle or not but it's just for different reasons than you.

It's my choice. Saying i cant have my choice of self defense is legislating my right to self defense away.

[bu villain]

And some of those muslims have decided to kill 1000s of americans. They do it proudly, openly and with little regard for human life. You acknowledge that i cant distinguish between the good and the bad, yet you tell me to assume theyre all good and then proclaim it's logical.

You shouldn't assume anything because not only can you not distinguish the good from the bad but you admitted you can't distinguish muslim from non-muslim so it's illogical that you say it is a factor you consider at all. It's like a blind person saying they are suspicious of blonde people. Not one of the terrorists who carried out an attack in the US was wearing muslim clothing when they committed their crime and some of them were not middle eastern looking so it is illogical to use that as evidence of a threat. I don't see a logical reason to assume middle eastern looking people are any more of a threat than any other kind of person and as far as I can tell.


I cant control the world, i can only control myself. Hurting a stranger's feelings just isnt high on my priority list, apologies. Paranoia is not the right word. I do not fear them, nor am i delusional about the presence of danger. Being aware of risk does not mean that i exaggerate it.

I don't care if you hurt their feelings either. You're right that being aware of the risk doesn't mean you exaggerate it. But assessing risk based on characteristics that are not significantly correlated with their danger to you is.


It's my choice. Saying i cant have my choice of self defense is legislating my right to self defense away.

No, it is limiting one method of self defense but that is quite different than not being able to defend yourself. If someone punches you in the face, you can't say, "Well I don't have my gun so therefore I can't defend myself". Do your first amendment rights no longer exist because you can't commit libel?

[.blank cd]

And some of those muslims have decided to kill 1000s of americans. They do it proudly, openly and with little regard for human life. You acknowledge that i cant distinguish between the good and the bad, yet you tell me to assume theyre all good and then proclaim it's logical.So, since christians have also committed atrocities against people, based on your logic, its logical and normal for me to be suspicious of anyone who looks like a Protestant Christian? Anyone who looks white with brown or blonde hair? Should I be at a heightened level of awareness when around them?



Saying i cant have my choice of self defense is legislating my right to self defense away.How do you figure this?

[Sinfix_15]

You shouldn't assume anything because not only can you not distinguish the good from the bad but you admitted you can't distinguish muslim from non-muslim so it's illogical that you say it is a factor you consider at all. It's like a blind person saying they are suspicious of blonde people. Not one of the terrorists who carried out an attack in the US was wearing muslim clothing when they committed their crime and some of them were not middle eastern looking so it is illogical to use that as evidence of a threat. I don't see a logical reason to assume middle eastern looking people are any more of a threat than any other kind of person and as far as I can tell.

If i dont know the difference between a harmless sand shark and a tiger shark, that is not reason for me to believe sharks are harmless. When dealing with the unknown or undecided, i do not lean towards expecting the best scenario. The risk of assuming the best is often a lot more severe than assuming the worst. Wearing a "fuck the police" shirt and having "gangster" tattooed on your forehead doesnt make you any more dangerous either.... but i am free to draw my own conclusions when confronted by a person who fits that description. I am saying this as a person covered in tattoos who might actually wear the "fuck the police" shirt....




I don't care if you hurt their feelings either. You're right that being aware of the risk doesn't mean you exaggerate it. But assessing risk based on characteristics that are not significantly correlated with their danger to you is. Radical muslims are significantly correlated with danger. Radical muslims openly express a desire to create chaos. I'm not making it up..... im taking their word for it. I cant tell the difference between a radical muslim and a peaceful muslim. I adjust my caution based on that understanding.




No, it is limiting one method of self defense but that is quite different than not being able to defend yourself. If someone punches you in the face, you can't say, "Well I don't have my gun so therefore I can't defend myself". Do your first amendment rights no longer exist because you can't commit libel?

So if i punch your grand mother in the face, she has adequate means of self defense since she has two arms the same as i do?? Humans do not rely on our physical ability in any aspect of life. What separates us from animals and puts us at the top of the food chain is our engineering ability. Stripping me of that engineering is the same as de-clawing a lion.... you are limiting my ability to defend myself. A guy i used to go to the gym with was a navy seal, boxer, just all around bad ass.... one day at the gym someone noticed that he had a gun in his gym bag when he was putting his clothes up. They asked him "why do you even bother carrying a gun, probably anybody you ever came in contact with you could just kick their ass" , the guy responded " i dont fight in the street, i fight for fun, it's a hobby... but when it comes to protecting myself or family, i carry a gun"

It's not for you decide how i should defend myself. I dont want to force anyone to carry a gun. If you're a "bad ass" and feel you dont need one... more power to you... i'll also decide how i chose to defend myself.

[Sinfix_15]

So, since christians have also committed atrocities against people, based on your logic, its logical and normal for me to be suspicious of anyone who looks like a Protestant Christian? Anyone who looks white with brown or blonde hair? Should I be at a heightened level of awareness when around them?


I dont have reservations about muslims based on something they did 1000 years ago. It's about what they did yesterday.... today.... or will do tomorrow.

I observe christians the same way as i do anyone else. I have an expectation for them when i interact with them in public. They do not alarm me as a threat to my safety, but i am aware of characteristics that follow them.

Id be significantly alarmed by a christian who dressed like this.....

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvdjQXzKARlIEvhFNiTSr_0CrqCK2MR 8r4Bfr9WMb2vpebcy7hUA

[.blank cd]

I dont have reservations about muslims based on something they did 1000 years ago. It's about what they did yesterday.... today.... or will do tomorrow.

I observe christians the same way as i do anyone else. I have an expectation for them when i interact with them in public. They do not alarm me as a threat to my safety, but i am aware of characteristics that follow them.

They don't alarm you. Even when they bomb abortion clinics, level half of a federal building with people in it, systematically exterminate millions of people who weren't white with blonde hair and blue eyes, force young women into marriage, make armies out of children, and get on an national stage and tell everyone they should live by Christian values?

[Sinfix_15]

They don't alarm you. Even when they bomb abortion clinics, level half of a federal building with people in it, systematically exterminate millions of people who weren't white with blonde hair and blue eyes, force young women into marriage, make armies out of children, and get on an national stage and tell everyone they should live by Christian values?

Institutionally.... yes... i am very alarmed by christians. Their political influence and power should always be limited. Unlike muslims...... i am capable of distinguishing to some degree the differences in christian followings and understand which ones are worthy of increased scrutiny. I recognize that i know little of muslims or muslim faith..... more of a reason to err on the side of caution.

I am an atheist..... that choice wasnt made because i dont like gospel music.

[.blank cd]

Iam capable of distinguishing to some degree the differences in christian followings and understand which ones are worthy of increased scrutiny. I recognize that i know little of muslims or muslim faith..... more of a reason to err on the side of caution.
How are you capable of distinguishing the differences in the Christian faith in public? Because underneath the masks, this guy......

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1259335!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/kkk9n-1-web.jpg

Looks like this guy...

http://www.jenesismagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/white_guy.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

How are you capable of distinguishing the differences in the Christian faith in public? Because underneath the masks, this guy......

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1259335!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/kkk9n-1-web.jpg

Looks like this guy...

http://www.jenesismagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/white_guy.jpg

I react to the masks when i see them and observe any clues that are present. I said before.... no method is foolproof.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xqmuZ98SPI0/SHFVT5X0H7I/AAAAAAAAA1w/kV1qFwUWSKg/s1600/muslimDM1511_468x310.jpg


Sometimes taking someone at face value is a mistake.... there's no 100% method of avoiding this mistake.

perfect example of taking someone at face value gone horribly wrong.....
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRn39p5oV8ZNXoLyHZuTGP8WZOFCN3PN LKI-7bUOXp2oda4W56b

[bu villain]

If i dont know the difference between a harmless sand shark and a tiger shark, that is not reason for me to believe sharks are harmless. When dealing with the unknown or undecided, i do not lean towards expecting the best scenario. The risk of assuming the best is often a lot more severe than assuming the worst. Wearing a "fuck the police" shirt and having "gangster" tattooed on your forehead doesnt make you any more dangerous either.... but i am free to draw my own conclusions when confronted by a person who fits that description. I am saying this as a person covered in tattoos who might actually wear the "fuck the police" shirt....

Yes you are free to draw your own conclusions and I am not denying you that. I am just saying that you are about as likely to be harmed by a muslim as by anyone else so if you are more suspicious of people who look middle eastern than any other random person on the street, that is illogical. Can you be illogical? Sure! Just don't say your suspicion is based on a realistic threat assessment rather than some amorphous gut feeling.


Radical muslims are significantly correlated with danger. Radical muslims openly express a desire to create chaos. I'm not making it up..... im taking their word for it. I cant tell the difference between a radical muslim and a peaceful muslim. I adjust my caution based on that understanding.

And as soon as you can determine who is a radical muslim with any sort of reliability, I will support your increased suspicion.


So if i punch your grand mother in the face, she has adequate means of self defense since she has two arms the same as i do?? Humans do not rely on our physical ability in any aspect of life. What separates us from animals and puts us at the top of the food chain is our engineering ability. Stripping me of that engineering is the same as de-clawing a lion.... you are limiting my ability to defend myself.

It's not for you decide how i should defend myself. I dont want to force anyone to carry a gun. If you're a "bad ass" and feel you dont need one... more power to you... i'll also decide how i chose to defend myself.

Yes I agree, it is limiting your ability to defend yourself. "Limiting" is not synonymous with "taking away". There are still many "engineered" self defense solutions (mace, taser, knife, etc.) I understand you think your ability to decide how to defend yourself should be unlimited but unfortunately for you, most of our society does not agree.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes you are free to draw your own conclusions and I am not denying you that. I am just saying that you are about as likely to be harmed by a muslim as by anyone else so if you are more suspicious of people who look middle eastern than any other random person on the street, that is illogical. Can you be illogical? Sure! Just don't say your suspicion is based on a realistic threat assessment rather than some amorphous gut feeling.

What's illogical is our government ignoring tips that radical muslims are plotting a terrorist attack on american soil while simultaneously feeling the need to circumvent the constitution to spy on the press because they feel our national security depends on it. As long as i know i our government rolls out the red carpet for any foreigner from any hostile conflict nation to come here and then turns them loose without giving them a 2nd glance, i will rely on my "amorphous gut feelings" with every single individual i come in contact with.




And as soon as you can determine who is a radical muslim with any sort of reliability, I will support your increased suspicion. As soon as you can determine who isnt a radical muslim with any sort of reliability, i will support your lack of suspicion.




Yes I agree, it is limiting your ability to defend yourself. "Limiting" is not synonymous with "taking away". There are still many "engineered" self defense solutions (mace, taser, knife, etc.) I understand you think your ability to decide how to defend yourself should be unlimited but unfortunately for you, most of our society does not agree.

And you support the mob mentality that thinks the majority should be able to vote away the rights of the minority.


"The people will not understand the importance of the 2nd amendment until its too late"

Something Obama and every other liberal democrat understands..... once your right to defend yourself is gone, your right and ability to defend your rights in general is gone. Gun control is not and never was about guns.... its about control.

[bu villain]

What's illogical is our government ignoring tips that radical muslims are plotting a terrorist attack on american soil while simultaneously feeling the need to circumvent the constitution to spy on the press because they feel our national security depends on it. As long as i know i our government rolls out the red carpet for any foreigner from any hostile conflict nation to come here and then turns them loose without giving them a 2nd glance, i will rely on my "amorphous gut feelings" with every single individual i come in contact with.

Government policy is irrelevant to this discussion. As of now, terrorist attacks are just about the bottom of the list for ways you will die or become seriously injured. Be worried about them if you like, but I suggest you spend more mental energy on the hundreds of threats that pose a much more significant threat. Now government policy may lead to more attacks in the future, but for now, it's simply not a major issue for living your daily life.


As soon as you can determine who isnt a radical muslim with any sort of reliability, i will support your lack of suspicion.

Unfortunately your attempt to flip the script doesn't make much sense. Your saying I should assume everyone is a threat unless I'm sure they aren't. I would be constantly paranoid of everyone if I lived my life that way.


And you support the mob mentality that thinks the majority should be able to vote away the rights of the minority.

If you mean representative democracy, then yes I believe in it. The world is ruled by people, not your personal belief on rights. People will always determine which rights are upheld and which aren't. Whether it should be that way or not is irrelevant.

[Sinfix_15]

Government policy is irrelevant to this discussion. As of now, terrorist attacks are just about the bottom of the list for ways you will die or become seriously injured. Be worried about them if you like, but I suggest you spend more mental energy on the hundreds of threats that pose a much more significant threat. Now government policy may lead to more attacks in the future, but for now, it's simply not a major issue for living your daily life.

Not an issue in anyone's daily life. Noted. And it is relevant to the discussion, knowing that our boarders are not secure is reason for me to be aware of possible dangers. That muslim sitting beside me on a bus might be Osama's uncle... idk...
http://media.salon.com/2013/04/boston-marathon-lives-saved.jpeg-1280x960.jpg





Unfortunately your attempt to flip the script doesn't make much sense. Your saying I should assume everyone is a threat unless I'm sure they aren't. I would be constantly paranoid of everyone if I lived my life that way.

You exaggerate. Paying attention is not paranoia. Based on my surroundings, sometimes i pay more attention than others. Your belief to trust people and be optimistic is equally as unwarranted as my belief to be suspicious, yet you're presenting your opinion as a fact, which is most certainly is not.




If you mean representative democracy, then yes I believe in it. The world is ruled by people, not your personal belief on rights. People will always determine which rights are upheld and which aren't. Whether it should be that way or not is irrelevant.

Why the hell do we get our panties all in a bunch over slavery then..... It was just representative democracy at work. The majority wanted slaves and had them, who gives a shit about the rights of slaves.... the majority voted that they didnt have any. God bless america..... bet owning slaves was nice... wish i had someone to do my lawn for free. It was right because representative democracy decided it was.

[bu villain]

Not an issue in anyone's daily life. Noted. And it is relevant to the discussion, knowing that our boarders are not secure is reason for me to be aware of possible dangers. That muslim sitting beside me on a bus might be Osama's uncle... idk...

It's not an issue of whether it is possible for you to be a victim of such attacks. The issue is how much mental energy should you devote to it. Your worry should be commensurate with the risk. Just because the risk is greater than 0, doesn't mean it is significant. Mama Cass died choking on a ham sandwich but I don't raise my awareness when I sit down to eat Subway. Maybe this will help... what percentage of unnatural deaths are from terrorist attacks in the US each year? Do you worry about all the more likely causes at least as much if not more than you worry about terrorist attacks?


You exaggerate. Paying attention is not paranoia. Based on my surroundings, sometimes i pay more attention than others. Your belief to trust people and be optimistic is equally as unwarranted as my belief to be suspicious, yet you're presenting your opinion as a fact, which is most certainly is not.

Paying attention solely based on a belief that is not based on fact is paranoia. Again, I'm not saying you have to trust anyone, I'm just pointing out the illogical nature of your middle eastern mistrust. I would say people with gang tats are significantly more likely to commit violent crimes. People who won't stop staring at you as you walk down the street at night are also worthy of more suspicion. There are a lot of legitimate factors that you should be weary of, but simply being of middle eastern decent without any other warning signs just isn't worth worrying about.


Why the hell do we get our panties all in a bunch over slavery then..... It was just representative democracy at work. The majority wanted slaves and had them, who gives a shit about the rights of slaves.... the majority voted that they didnt have any. God bless america..... bet owning slaves was nice... wish i had someone to do my lawn for free. It was right because representative democracy decided it was.

Just because we believe in the system, doesn't mean we have to agree with everything that comes out of it. You can be a proponent of driving cars without condoning drunk driving. Think of representative democracy like a gun. It's just a tool. It can be used for good or for evil.

[Sinfix_15]

It's not an issue of whether it is possible for you to be a victim of such attacks. The issue is how much mental energy should you devote to it. Your worry should be commensurate with the risk. Just because the risk is greater than 0, doesn't mean it is significant. Mama Cass died choking on a ham sandwich but I don't raise my awareness when I sit down to eat Subway. Maybe this will help... what percentage of unnatural deaths are from terrorist attacks in the US each year? Do you worry about all the more likely causes at least as much if not more than you worry about terrorist attacks?

How much "mental energy" used depends on the person. Some people cant walk and chew gun at the same time.... It's not a chore for me to evaluate situations or surroundings as they occur. I do think about chewing my sandwich when i eat it.... Just because i say i do something does not mean i am devoting a lot of time and effort to it. My routine feels natural to me.....




Paying attention solely based on a belief that is not based on fact is paranoia. Again, I'm not saying you have to trust anyone, I'm just pointing out the illogical nature of your middle eastern mistrust. I would say people with gang tats are significantly more likely to commit violent crimes. People who won't stop staring at you as you walk down the street at night are also worthy of more suspicion. There are a lot of legitimate factors that you should be weary of, but simply being of middle eastern decent without any other warning signs just isn't worth worrying about.

It's not based solely on their belief. I am "weary" of all factors, this is just another one on my list. If i see someone who sticks out for whatever reason, be it their ethnicity, choice of clothing, their accent or language... ect ect... i will give them a second glance. If no other red flags appear, on to the next one. Takes all of 2 seconds in my mind, nothing you would ever notice. If a middle eastern man walks into a gas station with a tense posture and sets down a backpack and walks out... i'm going to notice that. It doesnt mean i'm going to follow him around the candy isle making sure he isnt up to no good. It's just heightened awareness in general...




Think of representative democracy like a gun. It's just a tool. It can be used for good or for evil.

Indeed.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8yBmwXW4XEM/SxGB-6ZX5oI/AAAAAAAACtM/7iMIo4_wZe4/s1600/vampire_obama.jpg

[bu villain]

It's not based solely on their belief. I am "weary" of all factors, this is just another one on my list. If i see someone who sticks out for whatever reason, be it their ethnicity, choice of clothing, their accent or language... ect ect... i will give them a second glance. If no other red flags appear, on to the next one. Takes all of 2 seconds in my mind, nothing you would ever notice. If a middle eastern man walks into a gas station with a tense posture and sets down a backpack and walks out... i'm going to notice that. It doesnt mean i'm going to follow him around the candy isle making sure he isnt up to no good. It's just heightened awareness in general...

Acting agitated, leaving bags around for no apparent reason, are certainly valid reasons to be suspicious but simply being middle eastern is not in itself a valid reason for suspicion. Based on your description, it sounds like you are only very mildly unfairly stereotyping middle easterners so I won't berate you too much more on the subject. Continue on with your general mistrust of an entire region of the world.

[Sinfix_15]

Acting agitated, leaving bags around for no apparent reason, are certainly valid reasons to be suspicious but simply being middle eastern is not in itself a valid reason for suspicion. Based on your description, it sounds like you are only very mildly unfairly stereotyping middle easterners so I won't berate you too much more on the subject. Continue on with your general mistrust of an entire region of the world.

Stereotypes are based on facts, how much emphasis you put on those facts is up to you. It is what it is. DTA.....

and for what it's worth, i trust this region of the world a lot less.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG

[.blank cd]

Stereotypes are based on facts
What an ignorant thing to say.

[Sinfix_15]

What an ignorant thing to say.

Do you need me to explain to you what a stereotype is?

[.blank cd]

Knock yourself out. We'll see how close it matches up with Websters definition

[Sinfix_15]

Knock yourself out. We'll see how close it matches up with Websters definition

Black people are good at basketball. This is a stereotype. Not all black people are good at basketball, but assuming they were because of X amount of them being good at basketball would be a stereotype. This stereotype is derived from some amount of black people being good at basketball.


Black people are green. = lie.
Black people are good at basketball. = stereotype.

The difference in these two statements? one is partially true.

[bu villain]

A middle eastern person is more likely to cause you harm = lie.

[Sinfix_15]

A middle eastern person is more likely to cause you harm = lie.

Not conclusive enough to call a lie.

Middle easterners are terrorist. Stereotype.

[bu villain]

Not conclusive enough to call a lie.

What is inconclusive about it? What statistic shows that middle easterners are more dangerous than anyone else? Murder rate? assault rates? burglary rates?

[Sinfix_15]

What is inconclusive about it? What statistic shows that middle easterners are more dangerous than anyone else? Murder rate? assault rates? burglary rates?

http://alqaedawebsite.com/link.php?url=----://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNHBAhcAQECLSAvljUPfNZKssFBvgw&url=----://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/30/latest_issue_of_al_qaeda_magazine_inspire_celebrat es_boston_bombings

Maybe that theyve commercialized terrorism. You cant deny the existence of radical muslims hell bent on inflicting as much carnage as possible.... there's no denying this truth. You cant accurately put a number or how many or what %. Every conclusion you can possibly come to is based solely on your own opinion.

[bu villain]

Maybe that theyve commercialized terrorism. You cant deny the existence of radical muslims hell bent on inflicting as much carnage as possible.... there's no denying this truth. You cant accurately put a number or how many or what %. Every conclusion you can possibly come to is based solely on your own opinion.

I'm not denying the existence of radical muslims. Are you denying the existence of dangerous people from other ethnicities? Every conclusion is based solely on your opinion? Really? So somewhere between 0% and 100% of middle easterners want to kill you and whatever percentage you pick is valid because we don't know the exact answer?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not denying the existence of radical muslims. Are you denying the existence of dangerous people from other ethnicities? Every conclusion is based solely on your opinion? Really? So somewhere between 0% and 100% of middle easterners want to kill you and whatever percentage you pick is valid because we don't know the exact answer?

Yeah.... basically. However much a threat i feel any unknown substance or person is to me, that is what they are. You are welcome to do the same for yourself and your own safety. My views never force anything on you. I dont want to make you do anything you dont want to do. That's the biggest difference between us. You want to legislate your life decisions on me and i want everyone to be free to make their own decisions.

When i see a muslim..... based on nothing more than my own opinion, intuition, gut feeling... or whatever else.... i will access that individual risk for myself and act accordingly within the confines of the law. If i chose to go my entire life avoiding any given person or group of people, i've effected no one but myself. Why does this offend you?

I'm not out in the streets holding picket signs telling muslims to go back to where they came from... I dont insult anyone... i dont harass them... i dont interfere with their lives......

I just may at some point in time based on some circumstance, chose to avoid or be aware of a person based on some cultural factor or unknown.

[.blank cd]

Every conclusion you can possibly come to is based solely on your own opinion.What? LOL.

You do understand that you're more likely to get murdered by a Christian, right?

[Sinfix_15]

What? LOL.

You do understand that you're more likely to get murdered by a Christian, right?

Provide some data.

[.blank cd]

Yeah.... basically. However much a threat i feel any unknown substance or person is to me, that is what they are. You are welcome to do the same for yourself and your own safety. My views never force anything on you. I dont want to make you do anything you dont want to do. That's the biggest difference between us. You want to legislate your life decisions on me and i want everyone to be free to make their own decisions.

When i see a muslim..... based on nothing more than my own opinion, intuition, gut feeling... or whatever else.... i will access that individual risk for myself and act accordingly within the confines of the law. If i chose to go my entire life avoiding any given person or group of people, i've effected no one but myself. Why does this offend you?

I'm not out in the streets holding picket signs telling muslims to go back to where they came from... I dont insult anyone... i dont harass them... i dont interfere with their lives......

I just may at some point in time based on some circumstance, chose to avoid or be aware of a person based on some cultural factor or unknown.

You are xenophobic.

[Sinfix_15]

You are xenophobic.

No.

[.blank cd]

Provide some data.

About 4000 Americans died stateside due to radical Islamic terrorism and about 140,000 homicides in the US. About 85% of the prison population is some form of judeo-Christian.

[.blank cd]

No.

In your own words, you just described xenophobia.

You were xenophobic, now you are xenophobic and in denial.

[Sinfix_15]

In your own words, you just described xenophobia.

You were xenophobic, now you are xenophobic and in denial.

I dont fear the unknown, i dont fear other people based on origin or ethnicity. No single factor is an "end all". I dont look at a given person and say "he looks different than me, that's scary".

I observe my surroundings, some things get my attention more than others. I dont fear muslims. I acknowledge that some % of muslims are radical terrorists. It's a global system of awareness and assessment of risk, it doesnt speak to the result of that assessment. I'm not saying how high or low the threat or risk is, im just acknowledging that there is risk.

It's a way of thinking about all things.... but you're choosing to focus on the one that lets you chose some word to label me with and make yourself feel intelligent. I'm going to modify a quote a little bit, because i feel it fits you perfectly. "Intelligence is like being powerful, if you have to tell people you are, you aren't"

I apply the same rule to all things, not just people. For example.... i think about what i would do if my tire blows out every single time i get in a vehicle, especially a motorcycle. I've never had a tire blow out. You could say the risk for it to happen is low. I still feel the need to assess that risk.


However silly or unnecessary you feel my life decisions are, they effect nobody but me. Not one step i take interferes with anyone else's life. I am entitled to do what makes me happy..... i know that goes against everything you stand for. If there was a way you could legislate my inner thoughts, i'm sure democrats would be on top of it. I'm sure democrats went to the drawing board and starting calling up engineers after watching the movie "total recall". Mind control is their biggest goal, right now propaganda is their best tool though.

[bu villain]

Yeah.... basically. However much a threat i feel any unknown substance or person is to me, that is what they are. You are welcome to do the same for yourself and your own safety. My views never force anything on you. I dont want to make you do anything you dont want to do. That's the biggest difference between us. You want to legislate your life decisions on me and i want everyone to be free to make their own decisions.

When i see a muslim..... based on nothing more than my own opinion, intuition, gut feeling... or whatever else.... i will access that individual risk for myself and act accordingly within the confines of the law. If i chose to go my entire life avoiding any given person or group of people, i've effected no one but myself. Why does this offend you?

I'm not out in the streets holding picket signs telling muslims to go back to where they came from... I dont insult anyone... i dont harass them... i dont interfere with their lives......

I just may at some point in time based on some circumstance, chose to avoid or be aware of a person based on some cultural factor or unknown.

I'm not offended in the slightest and I have no desire to legislate your irrational fear of middle easterners. I actually think it's funny.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not offended in the slightest and I have no desire to legislate your irrational fear of middle easterners. I actually think it's funny.

You stretching my comments to make them into something you're capable of insulting speaks volumes about your character, or lack there of.

[.blank cd]

I observe my surroundings, some things get my attention more than others. I dont fear muslims. I acknowledge that some % of muslims are radical terrorists. It's a global system of awareness and assessment of risk, it doesnt speak to the result of that assessment. I'm not saying how high or low the threat or risk is, im just acknowledging that there is risk.So then you equally acknowledge that a certain percentage of Christians are radical terrorists?


It's a way of thinking about all things.... but you're choosing to focus on the one that lets you chose some word to label me with and make yourself feel intelligent. I'm going to modify a quote a little bit, because i feel it fits you perfectly. "Intelligence is like being powerful, if you have to tell people you are, you aren't"You believe because I picked a word you don't understand that I'm calling myself intelligent by using it?

[Sinfix_15]

So then you equally acknowledge that a certain percentage of Christians are radical terrorists?

You believe because I picked a word you don't understand that I'm calling myself intelligent by using it?

Yes, i do acknowledge radical christians. Why are you always searching for a bias when there is none?

I understand the word just fine. You going out of your way to misuse the word is you attempting to inflate the appearance of your intelligence. You're a book worm with the common sense of an onion.

[.blank cd]

Yes, i do acknowledge radical christians. Why are you always searching for a bias when there is none?Because you seem to be singling out Muslims or people with a Muslim appearance. "If a Muslim comes in and sets a bag down and walks away..."

What happens when a blonde haired blue eyed white guy comes in with a glock hanging out of his pants. Are you at an equally higher sense of awareness too?


I understand the word just fine. You going out of your way to misuse the word is you attempting to inflate the appearance of your intelligence. You're a book worm with the common sense of an onion.Well, you seem to not understand it. I haven't misused the word at all actually. Based on what you've described, you exhibit some degree of xenophobia.

[Sinfix_15]

What happens when a blonde haired blue eyed white guy comes in with a glock hanging out of his pants. Are you at an equally higher sense of awareness too?

I've expressed on more than one occasion that i am cautious of the police.




Well, you seem to not understand it. I haven't misused the word at all actually. Based on what you've described, you exhibit some degree of xenophobia.

Nope. You're taking a big broad comment and focusing on one small aspect of it. You're doing this even though i've been very detailed in explaining it.

[bu villain]

You stretching my comments to make them into something you're capable of insulting speaks volumes about your character, or lack there of.

I'm not insulting you. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I have said your mistrust is illogical (not backed up by numbers) but I don't mean that as an insult. Humans are often illogical, it is part of our nature. We aren't computers.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not insulting you. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I have said your mistrust is illogical (not backed up by numbers) but I don't mean that as an insult. Humans are often illogical, it is part of our nature. We aren't computers.

I view it the exact opposite of your analogy. I am attempting to view the world "like a computer". My mistrust is backed up by my own numbers. Why must every statistic be validated second hand or received by some source other than yourself. The biggest expert regarding my own life.... is me. The most credible statistician regarding my own life, is me. I would love to see a psychological breakdown of how trust, in general, is logical. Based on the definition you just gave, our entire social structure is illogical. Statistics do not back up getting married as a logical choice. Most marriages end in divorce. Living in a monogamist relationship has about the same success rate as hitting a home run off Randy Johnson blind folded.... but we all attempt it. Does the happily married man look at marriage statistics and say "oh wow, most marriages end in divorce, marriage is illogical"... no.... My truth is different from yours and it's illogical for you to believe you know more about me than me.

[bu villain]

I view it the exact opposite of your analogy. I am attempting to view the world "like a computer". My mistrust is backed up by my own numbers. Why must every statistic be validated second hand or received by some source other than yourself. The biggest expert regarding my own life.... is me. The most credible statistician regarding my own life, is me.

I disagree that you are the most credible statistician regarding assessing the chance of something affecting your life. If you are familiar with computation/programming, you are aware of the term GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). Your personal experiences are in many cases too limited (garbage in) to make an accurate conclusion (garbage out) about certain topics. For example, how many times have you been the victim of a terrorist attack compared to how many middle easterners you have been in the vicinity of. If you have never been attacked by one, your conclusion based on personal experience would be that they are no threat at all. We both know that in reality, looking at a much larger data set than your personal one would be a much more accurate way to determine that conclusion.


I would love to see a psychological breakdown of how trust, in general, is logical. Based on the definition you just gave, our entire social structure is illogical. Statistics do not back up getting married as a logical choice. Most marriages end in divorce. Living in a monogamist relationship has about the same success rate as hitting a home run off Randy Johnson blind folded.... but we all attempt it. Does the happily married man look at marriage statistics and say "oh wow, most marriages end in divorce, marriage is illogical"... no.... My truth is different from yours and it's illogical for you to believe you know more about me than me.

Marriage is complicated because it is a mix of logical and illogical. Love is illogical. Tax benefits are not. Also, the fact that a marriage may eventually end does not mean it is a bad idea to enter one. The comparison also breaks down because your marriage is something you have intimate and unique knowledge about. The desire of some middle easterner on the street however is not. Again, I am not questioning your ability to make a threat judgement using a variety of factors in a given situation, just that being from the middle east alone, in the absence of other specific evidence, is not a factor that should logically raise any eyebrows.