danivon wrote:I see...

That definition also excludes the Colorado Springs PP shooting.

How so? ". . . which excludes gang violence, domestic violence and armed robbery . . . "

Dear was not in a gang, not committing robbery, and not involved in beating/harming his significant other.

Well the number of people killed excludes it yes (four is required but there were only three).But I would include it. There is always got to be an arbitrary cut-off somewhere. But I think clearly there is a reason to differentiate between terrorism (violence used for a political end) and other kinds of violence. And of course the more people killed or wounded the bigger impact terrorism has.I also think there is reason to be more concerned about people going out and indiscriminately shooting people. Whether you want to define it as significant/major acts of terrorism or indiscriminate mass shootings, the two shootings involving Muslims were two of only of a handful of similar incidents in the US in 2015.

freeman3

I was using the definition Mother Jones uses which excludes gang violence, domestic violence and armed robbery so as to focus on cases of indiscriminate mass murder. That was not indicated in my original post but that what I was recalling

.
Your link isn't for shootings this year...
Does it matter if it is for this year? My point is that if you have measures that work to restrict opportunity and restrict fire power for all, that also would affect the ISIL inspired idiots.

One thing that should be pointed out is that there is no official record of mass shootings. There is no government agency keeping track, nor tracking the details.
Ignorance is bliss?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... -shootings

Thee question is could gun control measures have stopped any of the mass shootings? The Guardian article makes an attempt to prove this...

On the other board, Fate argues that the Colorado PP shooter was a drug addled nut. And that religion played a negligible role.

In Canada we had an "Islamic terrorist" shoot his way onto Parliament Hill. Sort of. Armed with a lever action rifle he killed one unarmed soldier on ceremonial duty. And wounded one guard at the front door before being gunned down. Had he had a semi or fully automatic assault rfle it certainly would have been worse. (An illustration of limiting the fie power...)
The point is that he was usually described as an Islamic Terrorist.
here's how he is more comprehensively described... Is he really what one would describe as an ISIS terrorist? Or just the sort of nut that somehow becomes inspired to end their miserable lives while killing others? (Which seems to be the single most common description that could fit most mass shooters.)

The attacker, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, was a 32-year-old Canadian habitual offender and drug addict from Montreal. Considered by several acquaintances to have mental issues, he had been observed by acquaintances and mosque staff exhibiting erratic behaviour. Zehaf-Bibeau, who had a Libyan-Canadian father, had converted to Islam in 2004 and visited Libya. At the time of the shooting, Zehaf-Bibeau planned to leave Canada for the Middle East, living in a homeless shelter in Ottawa while waiting for the processing of his Canadian passport application. According to RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson the "passport issue was central to what was driving" Zehaf-Bibeau.[12] Zehaf-Bibeau made a video prior to the attack in which he expressed his motives as being related "to Canada's foreign policy and in respect of his religious beliefs."[13] To acquaintances and co-workers, he had previously expressed support for jihadists and others in the Middle East resisting the West's intervention, but was not known to the police to be a terrorism risk. In his mother's opinion, the attack was the "last desperate act" of someone with a mental disorder who felt trapped.[14]

rickyp wrote:On the other board, Fate argues that the Colorado PP shooter was a drug addled nut. And that religion played a negligible role.

In Canada we had an "Islamic terrorist" shoot his way onto Parliament Hill. Sort of. Armed with a lever action rifle he killed one unarmed soldier on ceremonial duty. And wounded one guard at the front door before being gunned down. Had he had a semi or fully automatic assault rfle it certainly would have been worse. (An illustration of limiting the fie power...)
The point is that he was usually described as an Islamic Terrorist.
here's how he is more comprehensively described... Is he really what one would describe as an ISIS terrorist? Or just the sort of nut that somehow becomes inspired to end their miserable lives while killing others? (Which seems to be the single most common description that could fit most mass shooters.)

The attacker, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, was a 32-year-old Canadian habitual offender and drug addict from Montreal. Considered by several acquaintances to have mental issues, he had been observed by acquaintances and mosque staff exhibiting erratic behaviour. Zehaf-Bibeau, who had a Libyan-Canadian father, had converted to Islam in 2004 and visited Libya. At the time of the shooting, Zehaf-Bibeau planned to leave Canada for the Middle East, living in a homeless shelter in Ottawa while waiting for the processing of his Canadian passport application. According to RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson the "passport issue was central to what was driving" Zehaf-Bibeau.[12] Zehaf-Bibeau made a video prior to the attack in which he expressed his motives as being related "to Canada's foreign policy and in respect of his religious beliefs."[13] To acquaintances and co-workers, he had previously expressed support for jihadists and others in the Middle East resisting the West's intervention, but was not known to the police to be a terrorism risk. In his mother's opinion, the attack was the "last desperate act" of someone with a mental disorder who felt trapped.[14]

He could be a "drug-addled nut." However, this does not give us access to his recent drug history (thanks for not including the link). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shoo ... ll,_Ottawa

Further:

1. He made a video stating his intentions.
2. He had converted to Islam 10 years prior to the shooting, so there was some indication of actual religious activity. We have seen none from Dear (so far). A cross and a scrap of Scripture is not indicative of actual religious activity. We have no idea where those things came from, who they belonged to, or what Dear actually thought about religious matters.
3. He told co-workers he supported the jihadists. That is significant because it tells us he had a job. He (apparently) was able to function. I see nothing like that with Dear, who didn't even value the availability of sewage systems.
4. The sole witnesses of his mental illness were his mother and a few Islamic acquaintances. Sorry, but she's not exactly unbiased in the matter. When your child does such a thing, "sick" is better than "terrorist." After an attack like that, would you want your mosque associated with terror? So, you present whatever excuse exonerates the mosque.
5. This could be the statement of a nut or a jihadist: "A day before the attack, multiple witnesses saw Zehaf-Bibeau engaged in a "heated discussion" with another man while waiting to register his purchase of the vehicle used in the shootings. According to a witness, Zehaf-Bibeau said "If soldiers bombed your family, wouldn’t you want to kill them?". Staff in the registry office asked him to lower his voice or leave." There's certainly nothing that would rule out jihad.
6. It's interesting that his supposed inability to buy a gun didn't stop him from obtaining one. "How Zehaf-Bibeau obtained his gun has not been determined.[88] At the time of the shootings, Zehaf-Bibeau was legally prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms.[3] Additionally, his previous criminal charges and convictions, history of drug abuse, and lack of a fixed address all would have prevented him from receiving a Canadian Firearms Licence." Weird, I thought no one could afford illegal guns in Canada?

Fate

Weird, I thought no one could afford illegal guns in Canada?

Why would you think that>?
Other than being perpetually ill informed.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Weird, I thought no one could afford illegal guns in Canada?

Why would you think that>?
Other than being perpetually ill informed.

You're killin' it!

Either you're being dishonest, have zero recollection of your previous sermons on the joys of gun confiscation, or you're being funny. I choose funny.

Surely they just pop over the border to the US where illegal weapons are dirt cheap?

Actually, Canada has a pretty high rate of gun ownership. They just own guns more for hunting game than the other purposes.

danivon wrote:Surely they just pop over the border to the US where illegal weapons are dirt cheap?

Actually, Canada has a pretty high rate of gun ownership. They just own guns more for hunting game than the other purposes.

The link said the guns were illegal in his possession because he was prohibited from possessing them. Shouldn't that be enough?

Even in a gun safe area such as Canada, the people are not following the laws. What makes anyone think that having the guns taken away will make the people with evil intent follow the laws even more?

Fate

Trump will not win the first four primaries. If you think he will, name your price.

I'll take that bet. My price is lunch at my favorite chain restaurant paid via gift card. Yours?

Thank you Danivon and Ricky for the links to moderate Muslims condemning these acts of violence. That gives me hope.

Finally, something must be done to curb the readily accessible access to any and every kind of gun.

All kidding aside, can someone in the US purchase a tank?

If not, why not?

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Fate

Trump will not win the first four primaries. If you think he will, name your price.

I'll take that bet. My price is lunch at my favorite chain restaurant paid via gift card. Yours?

Thank you Danivon and Ricky for the links to moderate Muslims condemning these acts of violence. That gives me hope.

Finally, something must be done to curb the readily accessible access to any and every kind of gun.

All kidding aside, can someone in the US purchase a tank?

If not, why not?

http://www.idahostatejournal.com/members/tanked-st-anthony-landmark-comes-to-life/article_7724846c-edbd-11e4-8cf8-272d073d52fa.html

Yep!

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Fate

Trump will not win the first four primaries. If you think he will, name your price.

I'll take that bet. My price is lunch at my favorite chain restaurant paid via gift card. Yours?

To be clear, Trump has to win Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, right?

danivon

Surely they just pop over the border to the US where illegal weapons are dirt cheap?

Hand guns are illegal. And many types of "assault rifles". Hand guns are brought across the border by smugglers and its a pretty loose border. But even so ownership of hand guns is limited pretty much to committed gang members. Unfortunately they occasionally kill bystanders in their altercations.

The kinds of rapidly fired long guns that are often favored in mass shootings are harder to come by since this event which involved a semi-automatic rifle called a mini 14. (Notice his motivations... ?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89col ... e_massacre

But we went backwards from about 2012 when the long gun registry was closed by the Conservative Government over the objections of every police force in the country.

rickyp, I notice you've yet to answer my question.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Why is it only when racially different, or foreign people, start shooting that there's a cry to do something? And only so far as what is done targets that group and inconveniences not at all the group who actually present, according to the deadly math of mass shooting deaths, a greater threat?
Because its convenient and easy to focus on those who are different. Because its politically expedient to distract the populace and provide them a bogey man to blame their problems on...
Mexicans, Muslims ... it don;t matter. as long as they are different.

The one thing about Islamic terrorists is its made it easier for Africans to travel now. No more lining up for Ebola checks.
.

I'll let freeman3 destroy the rest of your post, but this is really a bit of work here.

I'll ask: are you saying that Americans are so racist they only care about mass shootings when it's not a white man doing the shooting? Is that really your position?

fate

I'll ask: are you saying that Americans are so racist they only care about mass shootings when it's not a white man doing the shooting? Is that really your position?

I'm saying its easier for a lot of people to demonize another group and blame them rather than actually address how to effectively prevent repetitions of the crime.
After Sandy Hook, and Oregon and et al, its always "Too soon to address the issue, we should be grieving". With San Bernadino there was no "too soon"
because the was no need to look in the mirror. There was someone who was different to blame. Even though, other than the motivation, the crime was so much alike other work place, mall shootings...

The San Bernadino shooters got their guns through a straw purcnase. An unreported untraceable transfer of weapons.
If every gun had to be registered, and the transfer of guns reported to the registry, and gun owners held accountable for the use of their guns in crimes .... a number of effects would occur.
1) gun owners would be more careful about who they sell guns to.
2) the authorities might be alerted to the transfer of weapons and head off incidents like San Bernadino. or worse should a number of ISIL inspired nuts seek a large arsenal...

Funny thing, that system works for Islamic terrorists and the usual lonely white guy who's disassociated .
Congress is set to once again refuse to fund gun control research by the CDC.
Why's that Fate?
Its the same as Big Tobacco on cancer, and the NFL on concussions ... we can't uncover the evidence ....