Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Terrorized Americans (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Terrorized Americans
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lest you forget, Timothy McVeigh already demonstrate what home grown terrorists can do without guns.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Rafi, that bit about 72 DHS employees isn't accurate:

Nuh uh. It was on CNN. Must be true. [Razz]

No fly list is still crap though.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:

Especially when there is so little relative danger from such terrorists. Any Muslim coming into this country are in more danger from us than we are from them! [Roll Eyes]

Based on what? Seriously, the reaction and backlash in this country has been about as muted as is even conceivable. In what way are they threatened by us?
They are not threatened because they are Muslim; they are threatened because they are in this country.

Over 14,000 murders each year (assuming 2013 was a typical year). Over 9000 murders with firearms.

After the Paris terrorist attack, NPR interviewed the head surgeon at the Paris hospital that treated the shooting victims from the heavy metal concert. The interviewer mentioned that the guy's hospital didn't usually see many gunshot wounds.

"No, maybe one," the surgeon said.

"One a week?" the interviewer clarified.

"No, one a year. This is not America," the surgeon replied.

Just wrap your head around that for a minute. Imagine a major metropolitan hospital in the U.S. that only sees one gunshot wound a year. In New York. Philidelphia. Atlanta. St. Louis. Los Angeles. San Francisco. Washington D.C.

One a year.

About 5000 people murdered with knives, bludgeons, poison, or bare hands. Almost twice that much with pistols, shotguns, and rifles.

10,000 refugees, mostly women, children and old men, are a minor threat compared to ourselves. We are killing ourselves at a rate where a San Bernadino massacre only increased the local murder rate by about 30 percent, and national murder rate by less than 0.1 percent. And for this, we have a leading Presidential candidate calling for a band on Muslim immigration. [Roll Eyes]

It takes a World Trade Center massacre to make a dent in our murder rate. A piddly shooting like San Berdo would be hardly noticed if it weren't for the "terrorist" label.

The chances of any given Muslim actually wanting to murder people and pulling it off is pretty miniscule, compared to the chances of him being a victim of the crimes we regularly do to ourselves. Muslims don't need to be targeted to be in danger. We are all targets, every day, from ourselves.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I really hope the bit about the no-fly list was just theatre. A way to put the opponents of gun control in a politically awkward spot.

That Obama accepted, for political expediency, that the no-fly list was a valid and functional tool that accomplishes something useful. I mean, the logic of too dangerous to fly, then too dangerous to have guns is sound. It's just that the premise that someone's on the no-fly list because it's too dangerous to let them on a plane doesn't hold up.

That really is the core issue there. If the logic that the no-fly list is not accurate enough to actualyl take measures to curtail their access to other forms of violence, then the no-fly list itself is of little to no value in the first place as currently implemented and needs to be revised or thrown out.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
With that said, I think we need to recognize the Right has a valid fear of the Obama Administration's good faith. A pattern of denying terrorism aspects of Fort Hood, etc, does give the impression that the Admin places a higher priority on disarming Americans than protecting them from Islamist terrorism.
RAther that they've carefully constructed a case for that doubt by repeating lies like the ones you reference about "denying terrorism" often enough that people accept them as truth.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That really is the core issue there. If the logic that the no-fly list is not accurate enough to actualyl take measures to curtail their access to other forms of violence, then the no-fly list itself is of little to no value in the first place as currently implemented and needs to be revised or thrown out.
Well, yeah. I'm just hoping that Obama knows that instead of thinking using it to impose restrictions on owning guns is actually a value-added activity.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I really hope the bit about the no-fly list was just theatre. A way to put the opponents of gun control in a politically awkward spot.

Don't really see how it could be. The way he was talking this is a no brainer, how could it just be theatre? Honestly, this was one of those unguarded kind of moments that just reinforce to me that this President is an autocrat at heart. I don't find that at all surprising in a constitutional scholar. Feels about the same to me as all the Atheists who can quote religious texts word perfect, manipulate them to their own ends, but always miss the point of them.
quote:
Pete at Home:
Since 14a applies to Citizens, it would make more sense for the no fly list to be barred from applying to citizens without due process. Say 30 days notice and a hearing prior to restrictions going in place on a citizen.

That's a start, though I don't have a problem with it going into effect immediately on a showing of evidence similar to what an injunction requires. It's really an egregious violation of our rights to have a no fly list that does not provide for due process.
quote:
With those limitations, and with civil rights penalties applying to those that bring spurious or politically motivated charges, I would be OK to the list applying to gun purchasing rights as well as to flight rights.
And to free speech as well? After all the power of ISIS isn't in their weapons and arms, it's in their ability to influence people here. How do you make "people" safe if you let the "bad guys" keep their most powerful weapon? Curtailment of rights really ought to rest on more than suspicion.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Based on what? Seriously, the reaction and backlash in this country has been about as muted as is even conceivable. In what way are they threatened by us?
They are not threatened because they are Muslim; they are threatened because they are in this country.

Over 14,000 murders each year (assuming 2013 was a typical year). Over 9000 murders with firearms.

Really did not realize that was where you were going with this. You realize that is almost certainly less dangerous than they are used (even before the war). That they are making a choice about the safety here versus other places they could seek to go.

But your claim is off, they aren't really in that much danger here either. Unless they join a gang they are more in danger from what they bring with them, than from the general state of the US.

By the way, not sure that you're using the statistics correctly, pretty sure the FBI includes self defense kills in that total.
quote:
The interviewer mentioned that the guy's hospital didn't usually see many gunshot wounds.

"No, maybe one," the surgeon said.

"One a week?" the interviewer clarified.

"No, one a year. This is not America," the surgeon replied.

And how many violent deaths does he see in a year? No doubt, guns are a preferred weapon of killing in the US, but that comes at the expense of a lot of other ways that people kill each other.

I'm also interested why that answer amazes you? There's about a million doctors in the US, how many do you think treat more than one gun shot wound victim in a year? Even when you consider that the number of wounds almost has to greatly exceed the number of deaths, I'd still bet that there's a small number of doctors that treat the vast majority of such wounds.
quote:
Just wrap your head around that for a minute. Imagine a major metropolitan hospital in the U.S. that only sees one gunshot wound a year. In New York. Philidelphia. Atlanta. St. Louis. Los Angeles. San Francisco. Washington D.C.
There are 381 metropolitan areas in the US (so sayeth google), how many hospitals are in each one? Chicago has over 400 gun deaths this year. How many do you think occurred in the top 50 metropolitan areas? How many does that leave for the other 331, how many hospitals in each? Bet you get to similar numbers pretty quickly.
quote:
10,000 refugees, mostly women, children and old men, are a minor threat compared to ourselves.
10k refuges who share almost no cultural elements with us. 10k refugees from a country with a much higher population growth rate. 10k refugees who already harbor views we find repugnant (anti-gay, anti-women, pro-terrorism) in much greater percentages than average. 10k refugees, whose children could easily be the next generation of "home grown" terrorists. Correct?

I have no problem with temporary settlement, but long term stays are not compatible with our way of life.
quote:
It takes a World Trade Center massacre to make a dent in our murder rate. A piddly shooting like San Berdo would be hardly noticed if it weren't for the "terrorist" label.
Really? Last I checked any mass killing gets national play and gets pushed as a "we must do something moment". This one is actually derailed because of the terrorism angle.

How do you reconcile that gun deaths have been decreasing year over year, yet the paranoia over mass murders is going up?
quote:
The chances of any given Muslim actually wanting to murder people and pulling it off is pretty miniscule, compared to the chances of him being a victim of the crimes we regularly do to ourselves.
Chances of a random terrorist coming from a Muslim community also small? The chance of anyone being a terrorist are miniscule, that doesn't mean its a good idea to increase a portion of the population for which the chance is a multiple or even one or more factors greater.
quote:
Muslims don't need to be targeted to be in danger. We are all targets, every day, from ourselves.
Your lifetime chance of being murdered (without adjusting for demographics - which makes a huge difference in reality) is less that half a percent. We are not all targets, every day, not from ourselves, not from anyone. Like I said, if we're being honest with statistics gun control itself is a big joke.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What are the limits on and/or levels of scrutiny required to limit the relevant sections of the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendments?

I assume that these rights are not absolute...

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Don't really see how it could be. The way he was talking this is a no brainer, how could it just be theatre? Honestly, this was one of those unguarded kind of moments that just reinforce to me that this President is an autocrat at heart. I don't find that at all surprising in a constitutional scholar. Feels about the same to me as all the Atheists who can quote religious texts word perfect, manipulate them to their own ends, but always miss the point of them.
It wouldn't be very good theatre if it was obvious. How does a televised address count as an unguarded moment, anyways?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You realize that is almost certainly less dangerous than they are used (even before the war). That they are making a choice about the safety here versus other places they could seek to go.
They are certainly safer here than where they are coming from, agreed. But they certainly are in more danger from us than we are from them, which was my point.

quote:
And how many violent deaths does he see in a year? No doubt, guns are a preferred weapon of killing in the US, but that comes at the expense of a lot of other ways that people kill each other.
Guns just happen to be more effective than any other common weapon, which means they kill more often than other common weapons.

quote:
I'm also interested why that answer amazes you? There's about a million doctors in the US, how many do you think treat more than one gun shot wound victim in a year? Even when you consider that the number of wounds almost has to greatly exceed the number of deaths, I'd still bet that there's a small number of doctors that treat the vast majority of such wounds.
But this wasn't just any doctor. This was the head surgeon in a Paris hospital. He sees everything that happens in that hospital.

quote:
There are 381 metropolitan areas in the US (so sayeth google), how many hospitals are in each one? Chicago has over 400 gun deaths this year. How many do you think occurred in the top 50 metropolitan areas? How many does that leave for the other 331, how many hospitals in each? Bet you get to similar numbers pretty quickly.
And Paris isn't the 300th largest city in France, or even 100th. It's comparable to Chicago, New York or Washington, D.C., not Podunk, AK.

quote:
10k refuges who share almost no cultural elements with us. 10k refugees from a country with a much higher population growth rate. 10k refugees who already harbor views we find repugnant (anti-gay, anti-women, pro-terrorism) in much greater percentages than average. 10k refugees, whose children could easily be the next generation of "home grown" terrorists. Correct?
And whose views are reinforced by their community. Take them out of that community, and how long before they start losing those repugnant views? How long before they start weakening?

Besides, we're very good at growing our own terrorists. We just call them "crazy" or "insane." [Smile]

quote:
How do you reconcile that gun deaths have been decreasing year over year, yet the paranoia over mass murders is going up?
Interestingly enough, because while the homicide rate has been declining, mass shootings are on the rise.

quote:
Your lifetime chance of being murdered (without adjusting for demographics - which makes a huge difference in reality) is less that half a percent. We are not all targets, every day, not from ourselves, not from anyone. Like I said, if we're being honest with statistics gun control itself is a big joke.
And by that same logic, we are that much less targets of terrorism, having a fraction of that half a percent chance of being killed by a terrorist. Much less than of being killed by an American.

So why the sudden fear of terrorists when it won't even increase our murder rate by a half of a percent? Why not address the bigger issue, the half of a percent, instead of the tenth of a percent? Why is it permissible to ignore freedom of religion, but not the right to bear arms?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And how many violent deaths does he see in a year?
Took a quick look at the Wikipedia page. France had 665 homicides in 2012 (#194). The U.S. had 12,253 in 2013. (A couple of thousand lower than the count I saw.)

So chances are, he probably doesn't see many in a year.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mass shootings are on the rise? Not really. Such assertions are made based on a absurdly broad definition of "mass shooting". For example, the most popular source for these claims is from a website started by a couple of rabid anti-gun nuts that include a incident where a 12 year old shot his buddies with a pellet gun and bruised them. The rise and count are manufactured for consumption by a specific group of people and doesn't really stand scrutiny.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
After the Paris terrorist attack, NPR interviewed the head surgeon at the Paris hospital that treated the shooting victims from the heavy metal concert. The interviewer mentioned that the guy's hospital didn't usually see many gunshot wounds.

"No, maybe one," the surgeon said.

"One a week?" the interviewer clarified.

"No, one a year. This is not America," the surgeon replied.

Just wrap your head around that for a minute. Imagine a major metropolitan hospital in the U.S. that only sees one gunshot wound a year. In New York. Philidelphia. Atlanta. St. Louis. Los Angeles. San Francisco. Washington D.C.

One a year.

Sometimes I think that the problem is that Americans are defective human beings.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From wikipedia, France has 3 firearm related deaths versus 10.5 (per 100,000)

Now, the homicide rate is more skewed. 3.55 versus 0.22, or 15x less.

As to whether a doctor sees a gunshot case, I guess it depends on how good the shooter is at killing the person, since you won't go to the ER if you're stone cold dead. Maybe the French just have really good aim.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Detroit has a rate of 35.9, DC 19, Chicago 11.6 and LA 9.2, all from gun violence, all places with signifanct gun control laws.

Still want to do these comparisons?

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
It wouldn't be very good theatre if it was obvious. How does a televised address count as an unguarded moment, anyways?

Good question, it came across that way to me because of it didn't seem to me like it even occurred to him to question. If he'd even considered the issue, I think we would have spoken differently, and that he didn't even consider it is shocking.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
You realize that is almost certainly less dangerous than they are used (even before the war). That they are making a choice about the safety here versus other places they could seek to go.
They are certainly safer here than where they are coming from, agreed. But they certainly are in more danger from us than we are from them, which was my point.
Unless they join a gang, they are in more danger from their friends and family than they are from "us." That's true for virtually everyone in this country, stranger murders are pretty uncommon.
quote:
But this wasn't just any doctor. This was the head surgeon in a Paris hospital. He sees everything that happens in that hospital.
And? Hardly changes the point that for all but a small group of US doctors the same statement would be true.
quote:
And Paris isn't the 300th largest city in France, or even 100th. It's comparable to Chicago, New York or Washington, D.C., not Podunk, AK.
It's not comparable on any meaningful demographic basis of which I'm aware. Certainly not to any of the three cities that you listed. Why do you think so? Just being an important city doesn't make for good comparisons.
quote:
quote:
10k refuges who share almost no cultural elements with us. 10k refugees from a country with a much higher population growth rate. 10k refugees who already harbor views we find repugnant (anti-gay, anti-women, pro-terrorism) in much greater percentages than average. 10k refugees, whose children could easily be the next generation of "home grown" terrorists. Correct?
And whose views are reinforced by their community. Take them out of that community, and how long before they start losing those repugnant views? How long before they start weakening?
I see so you're going to prohibit them from associating with members of their communities and force them to integrate. Are you going to insist they not be able to settle near co-religionists or other people of Syrian background as well?

What specific safeguards are you implementing to ensure they are removed from their community, and how would they have prevented this latest shooting event?

I think you're making a big and unwarranted assumption when you just decide that the next generation will "of course" just be liberal Americans with the same values as everyone else.
quote:
Besides, we're very good at growing our own terrorists. We just call them "crazy" or "insane." [Smile]
We're not very good at growing "terrorists," unless you intend to trivialize the meaning of the term. We've had a small handful that have arisen directly out of the mainstream culture, with the vast majority of those we've "homegrown" coming from minority cultures, that have in fact deliberately not integrated and raised their children as isolated from mainstream culture.
quote:
quote:
How do you reconcile that gun deaths have been decreasing year over year, yet the paranoia over mass murders is going up?
Interestingly enough, because while the homicide rate has been declining, mass shootings are on the rise.
That stat was effectively debunked in the other thread. I saw it a couple days ago (and the debunking) and wondered if I could get anyone to cite to it. Lol. If you accepted that at face value you'd be confused at least, but you might want to consider whether you are suffering from confirmation bias internally, when the problems with that stat were obvious from the start.
quote:
And by that same logic, we are that much less targets of terrorism, having a fraction of that half a percent chance of being killed by a terrorist. Much less than of being killed by an American.
True, I don't spend any time at all being concerned about directly being killed by terrorism, sure it could happen but it's incredibly unlikely as a random event. However, the media spends an inordinate amount of time directly promoting it as a risk, and that does have a direct impact on how people perceive the risk.
quote:
So why the sudden fear of terrorists when it won't even increase our murder rate by a half of a percent?
Because the media sells terrorism everyday for ratings, and pays no penalty for such an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

But you're asking the wrong question when you focus on "fear." Fear is not statistically justified. Concern however is a different story. I am concerned about the risk of terrorism, not because I'm likely to die that way, but because someone is likely to die that way and the impact of that death and the method will have a grossly disproportionate impact on the people of the country and the county itself. Pyscologically, terrorism always is going to generate a disproportionate impact, and when you have a media like ours that effect is going to be even more magnified.

But just being concerned is not proof that a particular course of action is justified. We all still have to explain why our solutions are the best fit. That's exactly where the larger gun control argument always fails, none of the solutions proposed are logically tied to reducing any of the risks connected to the shooting, other than the collective punishment of barring tens of millions of innocent gun owners from owning weapons that do far more good than harm, to try and stop thousands of people from acting inappropriately. Of which at least, what, half? would commit the murder in another way without the gun. And more than half of which would go away if you dealt with the gang problem itself.
quote:
Why not address the bigger issue, the half of a percent, instead of the tenth of a percent?
Happy to address the bigger issue, more than willing to come up with ways to come down harder on gang members who aid other members in committing murders, or you know as I'd put it, actually addressing the issue you're complaining about. What I'm not willing to do is impose ridiculous and onerous restrictions on millions and millions of gun owners who will never commit a crime with a weapon because you're scared of a tool and want to avoid dealing with the real issues.
quote:
Why is it permissible to ignore freedom of religion, but not the right to bear arms?
This comment doesn't even make sense. No one is ignoring freedom of religion. Are you under a mistaken belief that refugees have a RIGHT to be settled here? And somehow not agreeing to accept them is an interference with their religion?

In fact the only way I can parse what you're implying to mean anything relevant is if you believe that its part of the freedom of a religion to engage in terrorist activity and we're suppressing that freedom. As there is no way that's what you actually mean, can provide an actual explanation of how you think anything here interferes with the freedom of anyone's religion?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll just add that the Wikipedia list of significant domestic terrorists attacks in America is extremely short. Here's the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Notable_domestic_terrorist_attacks

There are a couple from 1910 and 1920, then it jumps right to the Unabomber, who didn't use guns and was in any case unhinged because of being subjected to MKUltra experiments while at Harvard. The next few are all bombings until 2012 when there are four mass shootings counted as terrorism between 2012 and 2015 (including San Berardino).

It doesn't seem like that's that much domestic terrorism over the long haul, and certainly not that much of it was gun-related.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Detroit has a rate of 35.9, DC 19, Chicago 11.6 and LA 9.2, all from gun violence, all places with signifanct gun control laws.

Still want to do these comparisons?

Sadly, Chicago does not have a wall between us and Indiana which has insignificant guns laws. (Do we really have to go over this again?)
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
From wikipedia, France has 3 firearm related deaths versus 10.5 (per 100,000)

Now, the homicide rate is more skewed. 3.55 versus 0.22, or 15x less.

As to whether a doctor sees a gunshot case, I guess it depends on how good the shooter is at killing the person, since you won't go to the ER if you're stone cold dead. Maybe the French just have really good aim.

To be accurate on evaluating the doctor's statements, you need to look at all gunshot wounds_ as well not just deaths. The Doctor didn't say one death/year, he said one wound/year. That's inclusive of intentional and accidental injuries, as well as those successfully treated and those that die despite treatment. Then add in those that never make it to the hospital because they're dead at the scene, assuming that the emt, coroner, or the like that verifies death is outside of what the doctor is talking about.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Detroit has a rate of 35.9, DC 19, Chicago 11.6 and LA 9.2, all from gun violence, all places with signifanct gun control laws.

Still want to do these comparisons?

Sadly, Chicago does not have a wall between us and Indiana which has insignificant guns laws. (Do we really have to go over this again?)
Thank you, that's the point. These comparisons are being made without context and once you begin putting thought into it rather than simply running out numbers the comparisons are not really meaningful.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Unless they join a gang, they are in more danger from their friends and family than they are from "us." That's true for virtually everyone in this country, stranger murders are pretty uncommon.
You keep missing the point, Seriati. While stranger murders are pretty uncommon in this country, terrorist murders are even more uncommon. Especially from terrorists that emigrated from other nations.

Now while we should not ignore the possibility of such occurring and do what we can to prevent it, we should keep that in mind when people suggest to deny refugees entrance into this country because of its danger. The vast majority of such refugees are harmless, and to deny them help on basis of a threat that pretty, pretty uncommon is just plain cowardly and heartless.

quote:
quote:
quote:

But this wasn't just any doctor. This was the head surgeon in a Paris hospital. He sees everything that happens in that hospital.

And? Hardly changes the point that for all but a small group of US doctors the same statement would be true.
How many heads of U.S. hospitals "only see" 1 shooting victim a year? And what makes you think he was talking only about himself, and not about the hospital? A hospital in a major metropolitan area?

How many heads of hospitals in major metropolitan areas in the U.S. can say they only see maybe 1 shooting victim a year? Can you name two?


quote:
quote:
quote:
And Paris isn't the 300th largest city in France, or even 100th. It's comparable to Chicago, New York or Washington, D.C., not Podunk, AK.
It's not comparable on any meaningful demographic basis of which I'm aware. Certainly not to any of the three cities that you listed. Why do you think so? Just being an important city doesn't make for good comparisons.
Well, what U.S. city would be comparable, in you opinion? Paris has a population of over 2 million, in a metropolitan area of over 12 million. That sounds a lot like L.A. to me. But where would you compare it to? And how many of their hospitals see maybe 1 shooting victim a year?

quote:
I think you're making a big and unwarranted assumption when you just decide that the next generation will "of course" just be liberal Americans with the same values as everyone else.
What can I say? I'm an optimist. I have high hopes for them and the Republican Party to eventually see the light. [Smile]

Besides, I know that liberals help mollify Republicans, regardless of what Donald Trump says. So I expect the same to work with other conservative immigrants.

After all, we also have laws that restrict what they can and cannot do. [Wink]

quote:
quote:

quote:
How do you reconcile that gun deaths have been decreasing year over year, yet the paranoia over mass murders is going up?
Interestingly enough, because while the homicide rate has been declining, mass shootings are on the rise.
That stat was effectively debunked in the other thread. I saw it a couple days ago (and the debunking) and wondered if I could get anyone to cite to it. Lol. If you accepted that at face value you'd be confused at least, but you might want to consider whether you are suffering from confirmation bias internally, when the problems with that stat were obvious from the start.

So both the sources that FiveThiryEight cited have been "debunked?" Could you be more specific? Considering they used different sources and came to the same conclusion makes me suspicious that they were really debunked. Perhaps there is some conformational bias on your part, too. [Wink]

quote:
quote:
Why is it permissible to ignore freedom of religion, but not the right to bear arms?
This comment doesn't even make sense. No one is ignoring freedom of religion. Are you under a mistaken belief that refugees have a RIGHT to be settled here? And somehow not agreeing to accept them is an interference with their religion?

In fact the only way I can parse what you're implying to mean anything relevant is if you believe that its part of the freedom of a religion to engage in terrorist activity and we're suppressing that freedom.

I was specifically thinking of Donald Trump's (the current Republican presidential front-runner) remark about closing mosques in the U.S.

But more to the point, excluding Moslems because they are perceived as "terrorist" is simply fear and bigotry in its most blatant form. Only a small percentage of the 1.6 billion Moslems support terrorism. Saying that Islam is terroristic makes as much sense as saying Christianity is terroristic. And those who say so, or support those who say so, should be ashamed of themselves.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The left has the weirdest disconnect from reality around Islam. [DOH]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What you'd find is that if there wasn't a lot of ignorance and bigotry about Islam, the left would tend toward the critical. Sadly many people feel forced to address the bigotry which is then mistaken for apologetics.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I seriously doubt I'd find that. Very seriously. The kooks at Westboro hold up signs "God hates fags" and the left rails against the intolerance of all Christians. A rather large and diverse number of Muslims kill gays or Muslim countries do horrible things to them and the left demands we understand and tolerate. So yeah, I doubt what you're saying.

[ December 10, 2015, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Rafi ]

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The kooks at Westboro hold up signs "God hates fags" and the left rails against the intolerance of all Christians.
Some factions do. They are not the entirety of the left. The vast majority of the left in the US, in fact, _are_ Christians and instead make an effort to practice their faith in more positive ways.

quote:
A rather large and diverse number of Muslims kill gays or Muslim countries do horrible things to them and the left demands we understand and tolerate.
False equivalence. It's the cultures of those countries that allow Islam to be used as justification. Christianity is used as justification for similar acts in similar countries. And the left is opposed to the small factions that actively promote such behavior. It's active bigotry, though to apply that behavior to the entire religion, just as it is to apply the behavior of WBC to all Christians.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
I seriously doubt I'd find that. Very seriously. The kooks at Westboro hold up signs "God hates fags" and the left rails against the intolerance of all Christians. A rather large and diverse number of Muslims kill gays or Muslim countries do horrible things to them and the left demands we understand and tolerate. So yeah, I doubt what you're saying.

We don't understand and tolerate. We just don't have a lot of control over those countries. Just like we don't understand or tolerate Christians in Uganda but there isn't much we can do about it.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The vast majority of the left in the US, in fact, _are_ Christians and instead make an effort to practice their faith in more positive ways.

I have to tell you that I have trouble believing this. There's probably a difference in demographics in big cities versus smaller towns or rural areas, but overall I don't get the sense that liberals living in big cities are practicing Christians in the vast majority. Cultural Christians, for sure, but you mention practicing their faith and I don't know about that.

On the face of it I tend to agree with Rafi's point here in the double standard, as I've witnessed anti-Christian bigotry (non-violent) in America first-hand countless times. However, I think a clarification is needed here. Just as we're aware that the radical right in politics doesn't speak to what most conservatives really think, likewise it seems that the far left politically doesn't speak to what many liberals believe. This may be especially so in universities and in the MSM, where ultra-liberal or progressive messages are often disseminated as fact even while not at all being universally accepted among liberals. In academic settings it may even be commonplace to mention offhand how misguided and ignorant Christians are, and certainly one finds this in the blogosphere, but it's true as Pyr points out that this surely doesn't represent the view of all liberals. The system is set up right now to force moderate liberals and conservatives to respond to straw man extremist versions of their counterparts and make it seem like those on the other side are crazy. This is part of the game, and as such casting aspersions towards the other side based on political or internet trends should be done with caution.

On the subject of anti-Christian sentiment in particular, though, I've heard it too often, from too many people, and in too many places for it to be a mere trifling amount of liberals who really think this way.

kmbboots, you're right that it's not quite fair to compare how liberals speak about domestic Christians versus Muslims in other countries. However I would suggest to you that the political ramifications of the American partnership with Saudi Arabia make it so that you need to think twice about why the establishment isn't interested in pushing anti-Wahhabist rhetoric. Maybe even think three times about it. What do you think are the odds that certain social media technicians would permit an anti-Saudi trending meme to start on Facebook, for instance, when the government had no intention of jeopardizing their relationship with Saudi Arabia?

[ December 10, 2015, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, The Onion said it best today.

It's nothing more than the usual victimhood claiming in order to grab some easy moral high ground. Everybody loves to think of themselves as put upon underdogs - it's morally fashionable and "brings people together" in the traditional "us vs. them" way.

[ December 10, 2015, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Christianity is used as justification for similar acts in similar countries.
Why don't you go ahead and back that whopper up.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, my family has a number of liberal Christians who attempt to practice their faith in positive ways. It's just that they're Anglicans so they're subtle about it.

The Establishment is a decidedly illiberal institution. It may be leftist or progressive in some ways but at its core it seeks to preserve the status quo to avoid risks to itself or its supporters.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Fenring, The Onion said it best today.

It's nothing more than the usual victimhood claiming in order to grab some easy moral high ground. Everybody loves to think of themselves as put upon underdogs - it's morally fashionable and "brings people together" in the traditional "us vs. them" way.

Who said anything about victimhood? Most Christians I know don't really complain about it even though they feel it. They're not bothered that much and certainly don't feel like they're oppressed, although they do feel that in certain social circles (such as in many artistic areas) they are all but prohibited from speaking their mind on certain topics for fear of being blackballed. In this specific case (social shunning in ultra liberal circles) their life choice really is censured in some senses, meaning a Christian would be free to mention being a Christian but the particulars of their views must be kept to themselves essentially so as not to trigger people.

The Onion is a clever publication much of the time (I have a subscription) and this article's premise is too vague to relate it specifically to casual anti-Christian sentiment. It could just as soon be about the religious rights issues that we've talked about on Ornery many times, where Christians are perceived by some to be trying to use a defensive posture as a means to oppress others. But that's a question of law, and what I'm talking about is...well, more about attitudes and snide remarks. I think anyone would be within reason to be dismayed at being ridiculed for their faith, which is a completely different thing from the issue of Christians who feel that the legal system is out to get them. These issues aren't in the same department, maybe not even the same building.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Fenring, my family has a number of liberal Christians who attempt to practice their faith in positive ways. It's just that they're Anglicans so they're subtle about it.

The Establishment is a decidedly illiberal institution. It may be leftist or progressive in some ways but at its core it seeks to preserve the status quo to avoid risks to itself or its supporters.

I'm sure you're right. Anecdotes like these are always good food for thought, but I was responding to Pyr's statement that the vast majority of liberals are practicing Christians. I'm sure many of them are...I'd be skeptical of 'majority' even but it could technically be true...but 'vast majority'? That really sounds wrong to me.

Incidentally it does bear mentioning that the definition of 'liberal' may also be an issue here. I'll bet that some people who call themselves liberals would be called conservatives if assessed by other kinds of liberals. So now we get into 'classical liberalism', new liberalism, etc etc. In fact by my standard I would even be tempted to call the very newest brand of liberalism quite illiberal as assessed by any previous standard. So sweeping statements probably don't serve us too well on topics like this, especially when the same word can mean quite different things. As if the raison d'etre of most liberals these days is the pursuit of liberty.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
I seriously doubt I'd find that. Very seriously. The kooks at Westboro hold up signs "God hates fags" and the left rails against the intolerance of all Christians. A rather large and diverse number of Muslims kill gays or Muslim countries do horrible things to them and the left demands we understand and tolerate. So yeah, I doubt what you're saying.

You have the weirdest disconnect from reality around liberals.

Really, though, the pattern I'm describing is real. Some domestic controversy prompts generalizations about Islam or Muslims, liberals object to what they see as an overgeneralization or expression of bigotry, and then conservatives say that liberals love Islam and think its more admirable than Christianity, even though that's not what liberals were saying at all. Explanations such as kmbboots offered above are ignored.

The same thing happens on other topics. Conservatives present their narrative of something that happened with Obama or Clinton, liberals object to what they see as distortions or misrepresentations, and conservatives claim that liberals are incapable of seeing any flaws in their leaders, ignoring plentiful evidence to the contrary.

I suppose it probably happens in the other direction too, but you should be capable of seeing this pattern in your conclusory declarations about liberals.

At this point it seems like the right wing is better than the left at framing debates and setting up the reactions that then turn into narratives like "liberals think Islam is just WONDERFUL". From my point of view, that's because they are more shameless about running with talking points that don't conform to reality.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The disconnect may be that I don't just base my conclusion on what they say but what they do. It is undeniable that the left despises Christianity. It is doing anything it can to eliminate Christmas terminology, gets apoplectic that the most minor sign of Christianity would be in a public space and ridicule them for "clinging to their bibles" etc. etc etc. You know this, we all know this. We see it constantly.

But we also see the was the left supports Islam. They worry about a largely nonexistent backslash to the point the attorney general threaten to prosecute negative comments, they refuse over and over again to call Islamic terrorism when it's obvious, they insist it's a great religion of peace.

The difference is incredible. It's obvious and undeniable(although you're obviously trying to).

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Case in point, NASA Was directed by Obama to have, as one of its top three priorities, Muslim outreach to make Muslims "feel good". Could you imagine a similar directive regarding Christianity?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The left despises Christianity" - no, but it does despise establishment of religion, push back against the religious right (duh), etc. Again, you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by certain Christians with hatred of Christianity. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

The Obama/NASA thing is also a good example. You have one guy who says something that is frankly pretty weird (it doesn't make sense), which the White House officially denies with a clarification that does make some sense, and you're pretending the original misstatement is evidence of a liberal love affair with Islam. Even if Obama said that (he didn't, it's laughable), that would be Obama, not "liberals".

Here you are, providing a perfect example of what I was talking about - just running with ridiculous talking points, ignoring contradictory facts, and using the fact that I'm pointing this out to you as evidence for your stupid talking points.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
"The left despises Christianity" - no, but it does despise establishment of religion, push back against the religious right (duh), etc. Again, you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by certain Christians with hatred of Christianity.

I think it would be more accurate if you inverted your statement to read "you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by Christianity with hatred of Christians." In my experience when a liberal has serious problems with Christianity it tends to revolve around historical practices of Christianity and not around specific actions by current Christians. I've heard exchanges dozens of times where when asked what Christianity does wrong the answer comes back as "the crusades! the inquisition! Galileo!" I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity. What's happening is not generalization from individual actions to the religion as a whole - the objection begins with the religion as a whole and bypasses the particulars of what any given Christian or denomination has done for the last 50 years. Most examples I hear about how bad the Church is come from a long time ago, and more often than not in such discussions the issue of denomination doesn't even come up. It's just "Christianity."
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The vast majority of the left in the US, in fact, _are_ Christians and instead make an effort to practice their faith in more positive ways.

I have to tell you that I have trouble believing this. There's probably a difference in demographics in big cities versus smaller towns or rural areas, but overall I don't get the sense that liberals living in big cities are practicing Christians in the vast majority. Cultural Christians, for sure, but you mention practicing their faith and I don't know about that.
What, exactly, are your criteria for "practicing Christians?
quote:


kmbboots, you're right that it's not quite fair to compare how liberals speak about domestic Christians versus Muslims in other countries. However I would suggest to you that the political ramifications of the American partnership with Saudi Arabia make it so that you need to think twice about why the establishment isn't interested in pushing anti-Wahhabist rhetoric. Maybe even think three times about it. What do you think are the odds that certain social media technicians would permit an anti-Saudi trending meme to start on Facebook, for instance, when the government had no intention of jeopardizing their relationship with Saudi Arabia?

Well, sure. But that isn't the left.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
"The left despises Christianity" - no, but it does despise establishment of religion, push back against the religious right (duh), etc. Again, you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by certain Christians with hatred of Christianity.

I think it would be more accurate if you inverted your statement to read "you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by Christianity with hatred of Christians." In my experience when a liberal has serious problems with Christianity it tends to revolve around historical practices of Christianity and not around specific actions by current Christians. I've heard exchanges dozens of times where when asked what Christianity does wrong the answer comes back as "the crusades! the inquisition! Galileo!" I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity. What's happening is not generalization from individual actions to the religion as a whole - the objection begins with the religion as a whole and bypasses the particulars of what any given Christian or denomination has done for the last 50 years. Most examples I hear about how bad the Church is come from a long time ago, and more often than not in such discussions the issue of denomination doesn't even come up. It's just "Christianity."
Either you are surrounded by a very narrow group or you aren't paying attention.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1