Northwind – Member
Complicated maths basically but certainly nobody can make a factually rooted argument that we’d be safer or less safe from this sort of attack if we could all have guns, it’s essentially unknowable and this sort of attack is thankfully too rare to draw conclusions.

Essentially, if most of us are peaceful and law abiding – and potentially, legally bearing arms – then any outlaw of any description runs the risk of being shot in the course of whatever crime they are committing.

I agree that the balancing factor is the very real concerns of a general public who are, in large numbers, demonstrably poor in mastering road vehicles which travel at just tens of miles per hour, holding the means to fire projectiles at hundreds of miles per hour and making split-second decisions at that is, frankly, as laughable as it is chilling.

What concerns me most is the bright background in the Paris incident would highlight any spray of blood from an exit wound, yet apparently, there is none.

Jesus this thread has gone very downhill since the last time I had a look. I reckon what most concerns most people is that lots of innocent people are dead and how horrific it must be for their families.

Now I don’t know what goes through the head of a religious nutter but I don’t think delivering a powerpoint presentation of everything that has led to them flipping out is really on the agenda.

Very funny. But as per the question why would you not believe the motivating factor was what they claim it to be. Or do you think that you know better. If he claimed he was subjected to abuse as a child would you dismiss that and infer that it must be some religious indoctrination at work? I suspect not so why do you do the reverse?

Sam Harris has a view on guns and although on the face of it I hate them and think the less we have the better it is certainly an interesting read.

Sam Harris, the riddle of the gun

then any outlaw of any description runs the risk of being shot in the course of whatever crime they are committing.

as does everyone else in the vicinity. I guess gun ownership must be the reason crime rates are so low in america.

South Africans own a lot of guns. They must be really safe from murder.

digga – Member
Essentially, if most of us are peaceful and law abiding – and potentially, legally bearing arms – then any outlaw of any description runs the risk of being shot in the course of whatever crime they are committing.

Pro-gun myths fact-checked

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

surfer – Member

Very funny. But as per the question why would you not believe the motivating factor was what they claim it to be.

Er, I already answered that. But just to repeat, it’s basically context. We’re talking about the things they shouted while attacking the building. It’s not a complete annotated list of grievances, it’s a war cry. So I’m not suggesting that the cartoon wasn’t a motivating factor- I’m saying that what they shouted doesn’t imply that it’s the only one. And common sense pretty much dictates that it’s not

South Africans own a lot of guns. They must be really safe from murder.

Interestingly, so do Americans and the USA is, let’s see…

in the bottom three…

To be against multi-culturalism does not make one Islamophobic.
I have plenty of Muslim friends, my closest friend is Muslim. But I disagree with mixing cultures on such a huge scale as has happened in parts of the UK since New Labour. I think multi-culturalism on the scale practiced in the last 15 years to be a huge mistake, which could lead to a civil war in the next twenty years. I have more in common with Muslims than the majority of my non-Muslim peers and I expect the STW Massive – mainly the fact that we both believe in God.
Human beings are searching for conflict (as any quick browse of the STW forum illustrates) so it is good statesmanship to reduce the potential for conflict – and conflict based on tribal/religious identity is usually the most explosive.
Why, for example, did the West continue its policy of multi-culturalism after 9/11? It makes no sense.

gonzy,
For the sake of clarity please don’t use the word “Islamophobia”, it conflates people and ideas, and it doesn’t help.

Not to be a maajid nawaz fanboy (i am 🙂

There is no such thing as “Islamophobia”.
No idea should be immune from scrutiny.
There is such a thing as anti-Muslim hate.
No people should be beneath dignity
Maajid Nawaz

I agree with you about the fact that some people here go beyond the idea and start criticising and blaming all muslims, and that is wrong.

But we are allowed to criticise Islam.
The freedom to do that is sadly what brought us here.
The necessity of doing that will probably have us discussing this again in the future.

And

digga – Member
He makes the trite but nonetheless factual comment that when guns are illegal (for non-military/police), only outlaws carry them.

Myth #10: We don’t need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don’t require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn’t pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal “straw” buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives did not have a permanent director for 7 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

Not the EDF but Tommy Robinson eat the pudding. Wouldn’t trust either of them.

To be against multi-culturalism does not make one Islamophobic.

a bit of a contradiction that statement dont you think? especially when in many cases culture and religion are so deeply intertwined…
if you so anti-multiculturalist how would you respond if say i moved to your neighbourhood? i see myself as british born and bred but i am of asian heritage and am a muslim…if you dont object to my integration into your society on religious grounds then it must be on the grounds of my heritage…which would make you a bit of a xenophobe….racist at worst.

Why, for example, did the West continue its policy of multi-culturalism after 9/11? It makes no sense.

what was it supposed to do? declare war on all the non-westerners and non-christians? maybe they should have all been rounded up and stuck in prison camps for their own safety or kicked out of western civilisation

As to Trump’s view – I’m sure our society would benefit from having cases like this
poor kid

especially when in many cases culture and religion are so deeply intertwined…

They need to be un-intertwined.

a bit of a contradiction that statement dont you think? especially when in many cases culture and religion are so deeply intertwined…

This is the nub of the issue.

Britain has a long history of removing ecumenical/religious authority from the state – starting with Martin Luther, via Henry VIII, and continuing through Cromwell (to be fair he also hanged the left wing communist diggers) and onwards.

How to fit religion in with western culture.

Gonzy I am very happy for you or indeed anyone else of any other faith or background, to integrate into British Society and to do so whilst respecting your beliefs and traditions. The issue is where people reject the very foundations of modern Western civilisation and take it upon themselves to act to to incite others to do so.

but i’m glad the mods have kept it open as it encourages debate and it allows the likes of jambalaya et al to spout their usual bollocks…

Interesting thing is gonzy I am “spouting” government policy, of the UK, of the US and of most of Europe too. The words quoted on Al Monitor ring very true.

We now have a second instance of a terrorist returning from the Middle East choosing to murder Jews, first at the museum in Belgium and now at the super market in Paris. Mix this in with the murder of journalists for drawing cartoons.

JY you might as well post a picture of Gordon Brown as he’d have done just the same as Blair with respect to the Middle East.

badnewz – Member
To be against multi-culturalism does not make one Islamophobic.

Correct.

Here is a good critique:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K26kKDCCV9g

Lifer – Member
And…

Agreed, I am not pro-gun. As I already said, expecting joe public to successfully multitask as judge, jury and executioner is beyond stupid.

Interestingly, so do Americans and the USA is, let’s see…

in the bottom three…Of a table of 9 countries.

Gonzy as you are back and you’ve said you’ve read through the thread you’ll see I posted that this summer you saw the admission first from the Hamas leader in Turkey and then the head of the whole organization in Qatar that Hamas operatives (released from jail under a prisoner exchange by Israel) kidnapped and murdered the three teenagers. Add that to 6 months of rocket attacks on Israel from Jan to June 2014 and you have the deliberate provcation of a response from Israel

Abu Hamza receives his sentencing later today in New York

But we are allowed to criticise Islam.
The freedom to do that is sadly what brought us here.
The necessity of doing that will probably have us discussing this again in the future.

i agree with you but its one thing to criticise and another to ridicule/insult a religion and its followers

i feel we’re in a vicious circle here…the actions that have led to this discussion are unacceptable and so are some of the attitudes that have come to the forefront from the resulting debate on here

In a free society, nobody has some divine right not to be offended.

I can’t think of anything, other than politics, that is more deserving of ridiculing than religion. You can’t have one group of people decreeing that that is now off limits. Which is what they’re trying to do

Gonzy you are creating a worrying false equivalence with your statement – also ridicule is absolutely acceptable in our civilisation.

Not sure how you can conflate the actions of these nutjobs with the views on multiculturalism mentioned here either. Unbelievable equivocation.

i agree with you but its one thing to criticise and another to ridicule/insult a religion and its followers

are you saying pisstaking of religion is/should not be allowed?

While obviously people being personally bullied harrassed on the web (and elsewhere) is a growing problem, the criticism and satirising of a concept/idea is freedom of speech and should not have limitation placed on it.

i’ve not spotted that post of yours jambalaya….which page is it on?

also ridicule is absolutely acceptable in our civilisation.

Absolutely. It’s part of the British culture.

What an idiot he never makes sense

IGMC

you can be as critical as you want of any religion and its followers…criticism leads to re-evaluating the ideology behind the religion and will hopefully create better understanding
but when pisstaking turns to downright insulting then i feel that a boundary has been crossed…when its tongue-in-cheek it can be tolerated though but when its done with a hint of malice then it doesnt sit well for me.

but when pisstaking turns to downright insulting then i feel that a boundary has been crossed

Still doesn’t justify murder. Drawing your own cartoon back would probably be appropriate.

Fair enough, there is a difference between a joke and an insult but Charlie Hebdo never crossed this line.

but when pisstaking turns to downright insulting then i feel that a boundary has been crossed

who draws the line?

Still doesn’t justify murder. Drawing your own cartoon back would probably be appropriate.

i never said it did

In a free society, nobody has some divine right not to be offended.

Strange how its always worded like that rather than an explanation of why it s ok to be rude and insulting to folk

FWIW no society is free than anything goes.

What about Johnathon Ross and Brand did they have the right to do that to Sachs and he had no right to not expect to be offended by them?

Bit less noble there and really it all depends.

I dont think religion is off limits but personally i am able to criticise all religions without the need for pictures.

Its about balance and …….nuance

If you’re so insecure that you can’t tolerate your beliefs being insulted then its you who has the problem, not the society which allows those insults through its belief in the right to free speech

I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone can try and defend any position other than that!

“He makes the trite but nonetheless factual comment that when guns are illegal (for non-military/police), only outlaws carry them.”

Well 3 people at the scene did have guns and the training to defend themselves from the terrorists and I am sorry to say it did not do them or any one else any good .

but when pisstaking turns to downright insulting then i feel that a boundary has been crossed.

& at that point it is ok to shoot people?
People insult religion becasue they perceive it to be a malevolent force in society. Or at least certain aspects of it are. This being one of them. Feel free to believe what you like, people who don’t believe in your particular deity are free to criticize, including with malice.

Wouldn’t it be better to allow your omnipotent deity to take whatever steps it deems necessary?

I am not sure why folk confuse freedom of speech and the freedom to insult