Mass Shooting at Florida Gay Bar

[Shinzai]

If it turns out that a ruling wasn't made within legal bounds, it'll be overruled.

Again, the entire point of this inquiry is that these sharia councils exist within the secular system, and are bound by it.

They literally state that rulings are being made that are incompatible with English law. The government is being as careful as it possibly can be in the handling of this, as to not offend anyone. Thus the strategic wording. The problems that have been brought into the country continue to escalate, year on year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33424644

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/651...k-law-MPs-vote

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/615...rkshire-Police

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...-known-better/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6761141.html

http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/09/the-tr...women-5550427/

[Endus]

They literally state that rulings are being made that are incompatible with English law. The government is being as careful as it possibly can be in the handling of this, as to not offend anyone. Thus the strategic wording. The problems that have been brought into the country continue to escalate, year on year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33424644

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/651...k-law-MPs-vote

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/615...rkshire-Police

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...-known-better/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6761141.html

http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/09/the-tr...women-5550427/

You're not paying attention.

The sharia councils have no authority to make such rulings. If they ARE making such rulings, they'll be sanctioned or something, and rulings which can be will be overturned. That's exactly what this inquiry is about.

There's nothing about these sharia councils that lets them exceed UK law. That's the point, and it's made clear by your own sources.

[Shinzai]

You're not paying attention.

The sharia councils have no authority to make such rulings. If they ARE making such rulings, they'll be sanctioned or something, and rulings which can be will be overturned. That's exactly what this inquiry is about.

There's nothing about these sharia councils that lets them exceed UK law. That's the point, and it's made clear by your own sources.

I have repeatedly stated that they're using Sharia Law over UK law. The fact that they do not have the right to is the issue I've brought forwards. I'll quote myself.

There are already Sharia Law Courts in the UK.

http://www.islamic-sharia.org/services/

The councils unofficially judicate over a range of issues, though they claim to only deal in Islamic marriage issues publicly.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/674...its-Sharia-Law

Sharia Law may not be the rule of thumb, but they are gradually working it into the country, below the radar and people are scared to call them out on the effects it has, due to anything said against it being seen as discriminatory.

[Nadiru]

You're not paying attention.

The sharia councils have no authority to make such rulings. If they ARE making such rulings, they'll be sanctioned or something, and rulings which can be will be overturned. That's exactly what this inquiry is about.

There's nothing about these sharia councils that lets them exceed UK law. That's the point, and it's made clear by your own sources.

They have no legal authority to make such rulings, but they have the theological authority to do so, which...is sort of the point. These particular religious courts in Britain are symptomatic of a population which feels zero allegiance to British laws or institutions, or to Britain as a country.

[Trassk]

They have no legal authority to make such rulings, but they have the theological authority to do so, which...is sort of the point. These particular religious courts in Britain are symptomatic of a population which feels zero allegiance to British laws or institutions, or to Britain as a country.

Which is why sharia is growing here due to nature of how so many middle eastern people flock here. They come over in droves, to a secular country with a christian background, and when they realize the country they flocked to isn't what they were expecting, they join with all the other immigrated communities, which make them easy to integrate into sharia belief, even if they weren't that extreme before. And lets not dance around it, sharia is the most backwards "accepted" system of law that hasn't been criminalized yet in the western world.

[spinner981]

So coming over from another thread that was recently locked in favor of the discussion moving over here, I will kick it off with this:

Your confrontational, insulting attitude is probably the biggest reason why people stop bothering to have discussions with you.

Again, I'm not talking about "not making Islam look bad", I'm talking about making sure the responsibility for the crime remains with the shooter, where it belongs. You need to stop putting words in my mouth and ascribing your worldview to what I say. I'm not you.

Would you mind expressing your stance on gun control?

Can anybody justify this actually?

[Endus]

Would you mind expressing your stance on gun control?

Can anybody justify this actually?

Why do you think that's even a valid argument?

I know people try and bring this up with me all the time, and it makes no sense. In general, I'm in favor of some gun control; I think the USA has a dangerously pro-gun culture and the existence of the 2nd Amendment is problematic, in that it means everyone has a right to firearms, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of gun seizures or something. Just responsible ownership, part of which is having a valid reason to have/carry the weapon. I just don't consider "fuck you, it's my right" to be a very convincing reason.

But events like this shooting don't change my views on gun control in the least. I think it's too easy for people like Mateen to get weapons like an AR-15, but I'm not going to blame responsible gun owners for Mateen's crimes, either. My above views mostly boil down to noting that the USA is somewhat unique in the developed world in its attitude towards gun control laws, and this correlates with its significantly higher gun violence rate, compared to those same other nations. Sure, it won't stop a dedicated criminal, but it makes use of such weapons in crimes of passion/opportunity much less likely, and puts hurdles in the way of people like Mateen who want to snap and buy some guns and go shoot up a club a week later.

In short, my "don't blame all gun owners" is pretty much the same as my "don't blame all Muslims" argument. And while my stance on gun control is pretty similar to how things work here in Canada, and I feel it works well, it's not the kind of thing that I think could be shoved into place tomorrow in the USA without consequence. I just think an open discussion about the purpose of gun control and whether the 2nd Amendment remains relevant in its current form, that's a conversation worth having. Even if the eventual answer is a reasoned "yes, let's keep things as they are". I just don't want the "answer" to be a reflexive "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" bit of nonsense.

[Mormolyce]

There are plenty of sane, responsible gun owners in the US and it'd be great if it was possible to make it difficult for psychos to get their hands on guns without inconveniencing them. But I doubt that it is.

This trenchant opposition to any gun control reform at all, the second amendment (as interpreted post-2010 SCOTUS decision) and the way gun culture in the US frames this as a civil rights issue is the source of the problem. No sensible laws can be passed or even properly discussed with that kind of resistance. So you're doomed to keep experiencing these tragedies as long as you remain at this impasse.

I'd like to point out that in other developed nations with strict gun control (I can speak for Australia at least), it's not like there are no guns in civilian hands. I have a friend who owns several, he joined an appropriate gun club, filled in the forms, passed the checks. There's sporting gun clubs here, hunters, etc - not that many but they exist. There's a gun shop down the street from my local supermarket. It's just that there aren't a lot of guns out "in the wild" and so it's relatively difficult for lunatics to get their hands on them. It's not perfect, sometimes it still happens, but notably a hell of a lot less than in the US.

[Khaza-R]

There are plenty of sane, responsible gun owners in the US and it'd be great if it was possible to make it difficult for psychos to get their hands on guns without inconveniencing them. But I doubt that it is.

This trenchant opposition to any gun control reform at all, the second amendment (as interpreted post-2010 SCOTUS decision) and the way gun culture in the US frames this as a civil rights issue is the source of the problem. No sensible laws can be passed or even properly discussed with that kind of resistance. So you're doomed to keep experiencing these tragedies as long as you remain at this impasse.

I'd like to point out that in other developed nations with strict gun control (I can speak for Australia at least), it's not like there are no guns in civilian hands. I have a friend who owns several, he joined an appropriate gun club, filled in the forms, passed the checks. There's sporting gun clubs here, hunters, etc - not that many but they exist. There's a gun shop down the street from my local supermarket. It's just that there aren't a lot of guns out "in the wild" and so it's relatively difficult for lunatics to get their hands on them. It's not perfect, sometimes it still happens, but notably a hell of a lot less than in the US.

Agreed. To be honest, I had always been someone who was mildly opposed to gun control. However, this tragedy has completely changed my mind on the issue. There is no rational way you can approach this incident and say there wouldn't have been a fraction of the casualties if we simply had stricter laws in place.

I think the underlying problem is that some people in this country treat their "right" to own incredibly dangerous firearms with the same zealotry that other people believe they have the right to punish punish gays for being sinners because some piece of paper tells them so. Sane destructive line of thinking.

[Venant]

Agreed. To be honest, I had always been someone who was mildly opposed to gun control. However, this tragedy has completely changed my mind on the issue. There is no rational way you can approach this incident and say there wouldn't have been a fraction of the casualties if we simply had stricter laws in place.

I think the underlying problem is that some people in this country treat their "right" to own incredibly dangerous firearms with the same zealotry that other people believe they have the right to punish punish gays for being sinners because some piece of paper tells them so. Sane destructive line of thinking.

So you really trust the government that has known this guy is a radical for years and was contacted by a gun store weeks prior to the attack, a gun store that had informed the government that the shooter was looking to buy body armor and massive amounts of ammunition. I mean, the government is apparently completely incompetent, so why would you believe adding another law to the books will make it work better?

[Khaza-R]

So you really trust the government that has known this guy is a radical for years and was contacted by a gun store weeks prior to the attack, a gun store that had informed the government that the shooter was looking to buy body armor and massive amounts of ammunition. I mean, the government is apparently completely incompetent, so why would you believe adding another law to the books will make it work better?

That's sort of like asking me if I believe in speed limits on the road just because people will still get in accidents.

Any added precaution is better than the current system. I have zero doubt in that.

[Mornic]

Trying to make stricter gun laws is like the war on drugs, they might be a little harder to get but they will still make it into the country in the hands of those you wished hadn't. Open carry for legal citizens should be LEGAL with a clean background check period

[Mormolyce]

So you really trust the government that has known this guy is a radical for years and was contacted by a gun store weeks prior to the attack, a gun store that had informed the government that the shooter was looking to buy body armor and massive amounts of ammunition. I mean, the government is apparently completely incompetent, so why would you believe adding another law to the books will make it work better?

You're always going to be subject to the problems of bureaucracy, just as every other country is.

And I don't think it's a matter of just "adding another law". It's not about more or less laws, it's about the right laws. And furthermore, how they are enforced, and the quality of the databases that support them, etc.

Note that the right laws will be fought tooth and nail by the gun rights lobby, on general principle. And will probably require a repeal of the Second Amendment. That's one of the major problems the US faces since the 2010 SC decision.

- - - Updated - - -

Trying to make stricter gun laws is like the war on drugs, they might be a little harder to get but they will still make it into the country in the hands of those you wished hadn't. Open carry for legal citizens should be LEGAL with a clean background check period

Yes, but far less of them. Example: first world countries outside the US.

[Emjay18]

There are plenty of sane, responsible gun owners in the US and it'd be great if it was possible to make it difficult for psychos to get their hands on guns without inconveniencing them. But I doubt that it is.

That is because this guy was one of those very responsible gun owners, up until he walked into that club and pulled the trigger. He isn't a statistical outlier, because many gun owners are also law abiding until they aren't.

You're also forgetting that many of those law abiding gun owners, in their own words, are gun owners because they don't trust or like the law. The paranoia reaches deep, despite living in the safest period in human history. They want to have guns to prevent a government overreach, but are oblivious to what voting accomplishes. They want a gun to feel safe if someone breaks into their home, even though the chances of said break in happening are incredibly slim to begin with.
Eventually, enough people will come to realize that law abiding citizens, by definition, don't prepare doomsday bunkers and stockpile ammo waiting for an 'inevitable' collapse of the law, because said law abiding people don't want that collapse to happen and want to uphold them as they see fit. The narrative is contradictory at the core. Why do you think the current narrative is unrealistic and always a black and white 'take all guns/guns always forever' scenario? At some point though, the dam will break and the rights of the few will stop outweighing the rights of the many.

[Mormolyce]

That is because this guy was one of those very responsible gun owners, up until he walked into that club and pulled the trigger. He isn't a statistical outlier, because many gun owners are also law abiding until they aren't.

You're also forgetting that many of those law abiding gun owners, in their own words, are gun owners because they don't trust or like the law. The paranoia reaches deep, despite living in the safest period in human history. They want to have guns to prevent a government overreach, but are oblivious to what voting accomplishes. They want a gun to feel safe if someone breaks into their home, even though the chances of said break in happening are incredibly slim to begin with.
Eventually, enough people will come to realize that law abiding citizens, by definition, don't prepare doomsday bunkers and stockpile ammo waiting for an 'inevitable' collapse of the law, because said law abiding people don't want that collapse to happen and want to uphold them as they see fit. The narrative is contradictory at the core. Why do you think the current narrative is unrealistic and always a black and white 'take all guns/guns always forever' scenario? At some point though, the dam will break and the rights of the few will stop outweighing the rights of the many.

That's more or less what I was saying.

[Incredibale]

That is because this guy was one of those very responsible gun owners, up until he walked into that club and pulled the trigger. He isn't a statistical outlier, because many gun owners are also law abiding until they aren't.

Law abiding car owners are law abiding until they aren't, and cars are far more dangerous than guns regardless of their intended use.

You're also forgetting that many of those law abiding gun owners, in their own words, are gun owners because they don't trust or like the law. The paranoia reaches deep, despite living in the safest period in human history.

Last century, within the lifetime of many people alive today, governments were responsible for the death of hundreds of millions, and gun control preceded many of these deaths.

They want to have guns to prevent a government overreach, but are oblivious to what voting accomplishes. They want a gun to feel safe if someone breaks into their home, even though the chances of said break in happening are incredibly slim to begin with.

Voting accomplishes little, as this country becomes more tyrannical decade over decade. Obama was voted in not just due to "he's black", though that was a large part of it, but also because of Bush. Many, including me, thought we would see a rollback of government spying and intrusion, but Obama pardoned companies involved with it, let the TSA get out of control, continued to persecute the phony war on terror and created ISIS, is letting people/criminals come over the border essentially unchecked, and expanded government to a ridiculous extent.

Eventually, enough people will come to realize that law abiding citizens, by definition, don't prepare doomsday bunkers and stockpile ammo waiting for an 'inevitable' collapse of the law, because said law abiding people don't want that collapse to happen and want to uphold them as they see fit.

Citizens can't be law abiding if they prepare for societal collapse? Biggest assertion without evidence I've seen in a long time.

The narrative is contradictory at the core. Why do you think the current narrative is unrealistic and always a black and white 'take all guns/guns always forever' scenario? At some point though, the dam will break and the rights of the few will stop outweighing the rights of the many.

Government has and will facilitate these events through idiotic laws and lack of enforcing laws already on the books and then will blame gun owners.

[Venant]

That's sort of like asking me if I believe in speed limits on the road just because people will still get in accidents.

Any added precaution is better than the current system. I have zero doubt in that.

So your argument for preventing traffic accidents would be to make it harder for law abiding people to buy cars? I thought we were talking about terrorism here, maybe you should propose another law that makes terrorist mass murder illegal? I mean, if it will make you feel safer maybe we can posthumously execute suicide attackers?

You do realize that if this guy had pulled a Tim McVeigh and rolled up next to that club with a Ryder truck carrying a fertilizer bomb, he could have easily killed every single person in the club and within half a block of the club. I mean, if the FBI is so incompetent that it doesn't pick up on a suspected extremist attempting to buy mass amounts of ammunition and body armor, they likely aren't keeping very good track of every single Home Depot in the country.

I think the current discussion shouldn't be about guns, it should be about the bigger issue of how our government seems to now be completely dysfunctional when it comes to dealing with terrorism. According to the President, the actual policy of the government is to not call out Islam over what is happening across the world, because if we do that it will potentially turn millions of 'peaceful Muslims' into homicidal maniacs. If this is true, then truly it is the most pressing issue in the world today, since it suggests that there are enough potential terrorists to effectively end civilization. If this policy is a lie told for political gain, then our current government has grown so reprehensibly corrupt that they are willing to betray the values of our liberal society for an ideological suicide pact created out of an obsession with globalism and empire building.

Yes, but far less of them. Example: first world countries outside the US.

Countries like France where we have never seen a terrorist inspired mass shooting.

[wooters]

Trying to make stricter gun laws is like the war on drugs, they might be a little harder to get but they will still make it into the country in the hands of those you wished hadn't. Open carry for legal citizens should be LEGAL with a clean background check period

no...because the body doesn`t get addicted to guns. over time people will adjust to the change. yeah some criminals will get their hands on guns...but on the whole, violent deaths statistic are destined to go down a lot with a gun ban. only permitting people in clubs or hunting communities guns

- - - Updated - - -

Countries like France where we have never seen a terrorist inspired mass shooting.

If it had not been for the US`s removal of hussain...there wouldn`t be isis..or broad scale terrorism. the killings around Europe are partially USAs doing and fault...not europes or france. Its pretty much a fact...so take that into consideration^^

[Wildtree]

Commercial Intermission:

Every Kill Begins With K.

[Mormolyce]

Countries like France where we have never seen a terrorist inspired mass shooting.

I don't know why people keep bringing this up like it's relevant. The terrorists in France got their guns from Eastern Europe where gun control is a lot more lax.

Gun control is about stopping homicides and spree killers anyway, not terrorist attacks.