Super Mario Bros. X Forums

This happened recently:

So, a terror incident took place at some gay nightclub in Orlando. Fifty people were killed, and a very slightly larger number were injured. This is probably one of the biggest casualties as far as terrorism goes. The really puzzling thing about it is that the shooter said he pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Sad thing is I just heard about this coming from church. My heart goes out to all of the victims involved.

Hmmm.

At this point I disregard religion. This was another act of terrorism in the United States. Several domestic, some foreign. I can't wait for that day that such attacks suddenly stop (at the very worst, drop to just one attack every two months or longer).

Let's bring it down to a number we can all live with, okay?

mechamind wrote:At this point I disregard religion. This was another act of terrorism in the United States. Several domestic, some foreign. I can't wait for that day that such attacks suddenly stop (at the very worst, drop to just one attack every two months or longer).

Let's bring it down to a number we can all live with, okay?

i dont think everyone /lives/ with any number that isn't 0

^ My point exactly.

The middle east can have their attacks every two months or so if they want to do that, they should not bring that here tbqh. We should be following what Israel did after they got attacked, or maybe be more like Japan where they don't have this happen virtually at all.

AeroMatter wrote:The middle east can have their attacks every two months or so if they want to do that, they should not bring that here tbqh. We should be following what Israel did after they got attacked, or maybe be more like Japan where they don't have this happen virtually at all.

how could the u.s. suddenly become like japan
how could the u.s. suddenly have zero terrorist attacks
ya'll aint being very realistic

These "I claim to be part of ISIS" tards need to be controlled. Since idiot control is practically impossible, we need to rework how we handle guns. Giving people free reign with guns is completely suicidal, while taking them away from all common citizens is insane. Logically the best solution would be to meet in the middle and place regulations on them, but how?
Let's consider that anything can offend anyone anywhere. No matter what law you put in place or take away, someone's gonna get butthurt. Change/pass/remove laws in a way that would make sense, and not that would try to cater to everyone. Not everyone can be happy.
With that out of the way, let's make the regulations simple; Careful background checks on all gun and ammo purchases, ban the legal sale of weapons to citizens (the military and the police force are a different story) that are complete overkill (for example, the AR-15 the Orlando shooter used to fucking annihilate most of the club), and have gun shows and the sale of guns at those shows be monitored by the (probably local or state) government, maybe with even stricter precautions (because more people would be at a gun show than in a gun store).

These are just my thoughts. Bash me if you want, who gives a shit. It's not like any action will be taken because of this latest event anyhow. The U.S. REALLY like to repeat history, doesn't it?

We could reinstate immigration quotas from third world countries, crack down on people spreading messages like in the video above, and let people defend themselves. Gun control didn't help anyone in Paris. They're not going to turn in their guns, and they will still use bombs as they did in Boston and Belgium. It's the people that are the problem, and they're not going to suddenly stop if you take some weapons away - it doesn't change their hateful ideology one bit.

AeroMatter wrote:We could reinstate immigration quotas from third world countries, crack down on people spreading messages like in the video above, and let people defend themselves. Gun control didn't help anyone in Paris. They're not going to turn in their guns, and they will still use bombs as they did in Boston and Belgium. It's the people that are the problem, and they're not going to suddenly stop if you take some weapons away - it doesn't change their hateful ideology one bit.

My idea revolved around constant U.S. shootings in general, but I see your point.

But wait, with that logic, why don't all ISIS supporters just use bombs? If they can get a 50 killstreak with an unregulated AR-15, why not just use a damn pipe bomb and blow the whole place to kingdom come?

They could do either and that's the point. Taking away weapons that only law abiding citizens will obey, will not stop the carnage when they could just get weapons that are dangerous if not more-so in the black market just as it happened in Paris, Brussels, Norway, and wherever else. The thing that works is letting people defend themselves if they can if all else fails with keeping people out, investigating them, and preventing the situation that way as more homogeneous cultures do where these incidents are much more rare. Also just so we're clear the AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun which means if you pull the trigger once one bullet comes out. There's no major difference between that and a regular pistol or hunting rifle, it's just that the AR-15 looks scarier or something when it accomplishes the same thing.

before implementing gun control, i'm pretty sure that the usa needs to implement birth control first.

I don't think an immigration ban is the answer, not even partial. An actual terrorist could just take advantage of the fact that shootings will have been committed by the black or white population, and hence it would worsen the constant shooting situation.

And that's without a deportation order for the existing population.

That doesn't happen though. Black and white shootings are a whole different category than terror anyway.

Do you think a terrorist would explicitly point out their strategy for an attack? They could (and most likely do) depend on black or white shootings, but if they told us, then they would give away one of their weaknesses. That would be like if the White House publicize some of their closely guarded secrets.

Opening fire at a gay nightclub was also very likely a strategic attack. Regardless of whether they knew U.S. policies, they seem aware that LGBT rights are at least somewhat controversial worldwide.

You're really overthinking this. Nowhere that has been attacked has any strategic value for ISIS, as they're just trying to dissolve middle eastern borders for their caliphate. Sure they would eventually want to expand through Europe and the US for their little world caliphate, but right now they're not fighting that battle yet. They're just instilling fear and trying to kill what infidels they can by embedding terrorists in refugee populations, and through human trafficking. Both of those would be solved with strict immigration policies and border security, especially in the middle east. I've seen the Jihadist propaganda myself, and there's not much more to it than Islamic expansionism and killing the kuffar.

AeroMatter wrote:That doesn't happen though. Black and white shootings are a whole different category than terror anyway.

How come a white man can shoot up a black church and get away with him being flagged mentally unstable, but as soon as a person of color shoots up a place, it's called terrorism?

Putting an immigration ban in place isn't going to stop terrorist attacks in the U.S., though I'd like to see your viewpoints on how it would. Hypothetically I could, as a U.S. citizen, commit a mass murder and I'm pretty sure it could still be labeled as terrorism, but if it was just labeled as straight up homicide, then why weren't the attacks on the nightclub labeled as homicide? Is it only because, allegedly, the perpetrator said he was part of ISIS, or is it because he looks and has the name of someone from the Middle East?
If you're going to place the blame of these attacks solely on Muslims, then an immigration ban isn't going to prevent people of certain religions from getting into the country, as well as block out the ones currently living here. An immigration ban would also have a significant impact on our economy, as it would completely kill tourism, as well as people coming into the country from places such as European countries, Canada, or Japan (like me, as an example), plus many more for work- or personal-related reasons.

AeroMatter wrote:Both of those would be solved with strict immigration policies and border security, especially in the middle east.

Are you suggesting to cut off immigration of people coming into the U.S. from the Middle East? If so, that's borderline stereotyping, which would upset a lot more people and give ISIS the edge they want, which is to keep people within their reach and extend their terrorist plots. The whole point of taking in refugees is to reduce the amount of civilian casualties that would occur if people had been still holed up in areas of conflict. In the U.S., you're much more likely to have your house robbed than to get killed in an isolated terrorist attack.
If the situation rose to the point where there were constant terrorist attacks bombarding the U.S., I could potentially see the use of radical measures to ensure they stop happening, but since actual cases of terrorism within the U.S. are so limited (the last that I can remember being the bombings in Boston, though you could probably find something more recent within the U.S., and that wasn't even related to ISIS to begin with), I don't think stopping people from immigrating into the country is going to do much of anything except upset people and plunge the economy.

AeroMatter wrote:I've seen the Jihadist propaganda myself, and there's not much more to it than Islamic expansionism and killing the kuffar.

This would be an interesting topic to discuss, such as how you found it in the first place.

Kyo Saito wrote:How come a white man can shoot up a black church and get away with him being flagged mentally unstable, but as soon as a person of color shoots up a place, it's called terrorism?

The Charleston shooter is considered a terrorist, though he doesn't fit the perceived definition of terror because it's almost exclusive to radical Islam. There's a pattern of terror with Islam, which is why it's more associated with terror unlike terrorists like the Planned Parenthood shooter, or the Oklahoma bomber who were lone wolfs.

Kyo Saito wrote:Putting an immigration ban in place isn't going to stop terrorist attacks in the U.S., though I'd like to see your viewpoints on how it would. Hypothetically I could, as a U.S. citizen, commit a mass murder and I'm pretty sure it could still be labeled as terrorism, but if it was just labeled as straight up homicide, then why weren't the attacks on the nightclub labeled as homicide? Is it only because, allegedly, the perpetrator said he was part of ISIS, or is it because he looks and has the name of someone from the Middle East?
If you're going to place the blame of these attacks solely on Muslims, then an immigration ban isn't going to prevent people of certain religions from getting into the country, as well as block out the ones currently living here. An immigration ban would also have a significant impact on our economy, as it would completely kill tourism, as well as people coming into the country from places such as European countries, Canada, or Japan (like me, as an example), plus many more for work- or personal-related reasons.

It won't stop it completely, but it's a step in the right direction instead of letting in all kinds of people from cultures incompatible with the United States. The shooter's parents were Afghani immigrants, and his father had strong anti-American views and supported the Taliban, yet he and his family were allowed in. The FBI investigated the shooter twice, and people are asking "hurr why was he able to gun after that" without following up with why wasn't this guy deported for subversion. Until a system is figured out to weed out these bad apples, we shouldn't just keep the door open to every third world immigrant. As for tourism, that's not an immigration issue because people can still visit just like they can visit countires like Japan, Russia, or China that have much stricter immigration laws than western Europe and the US. Even if it were an issue, I still don't think tourism would be much of a priority when talking about this anyway.

Kyo Saito wrote:Are you suggesting to cut off immigration of people coming into the U.S. from the Middle East? If so, that's borderline stereotyping, which would upset a lot more people and give ISIS the edge they want, which is to keep people within their reach and extend their terrorist plots. The whole point of taking in refugees is to reduce the amount of civilian casualties that would occur if people had been still holed up in areas of conflict. In the U.S., you're much more likely to have your house robbed than to get killed in an isolated terrorist attack.
If the situation rose to the point where there were constant terrorist attacks bombarding the U.S., I could potentially see the use of radical measures to ensure they stop happening, but since actual cases of terrorism within the U.S. are so limited (the last that I can remember being the bombings in Boston, though you could probably find something more recent within the U.S., and that wasn't even related to ISIS to begin with), I don't think stopping people from immigrating into the country is going to do much of anything except upset people and plunge the economy.

If I were making the call, I would put strict limits of immigration from countries with countries whose human rights index score is lower than that of the U.S. and make it easier for people to immigrate from countries with a human rights index score. Furthermore, countries in the middle east aren't taking in refugees as they should. I suppose you've heard about the three million air conditioned tents in Saudi Arabia that are vacant? As for the consistency of terror attacks, San Bernardino was fairly recent and there's plenty of smaller incidents that don't cause a media circus like the shooting at the draw Muhammad contest in Texas. There's plenty of examples to look up, and even more if you include the increasing attacks on Europe. And for the economy, immigration keeps wages down if low skilled labor is imported in mass. That's a whole different debate though so I'll leave it at that, and leave this as food for thought.

Kyo Saito wrote:This would be an interesting topic to discuss, such as how you found it in the first place.

LiveLeak usually has stuff on there. It's mostly floating around on a bunch of obscure websites.