You could estimate that, but I doubt it'll be all that accurate. Don't forget that the Crusades were a response to the Muslim conquest of North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. Also don't forget that most of the people killed by Muslims are themselves Muslims.
Well, most of those attacks were done by members of radical Islamic groups, so...
Stalin killed most of his people through incompetence and bad economics. They largely were not killed by violence, although he certainly used a lot of that too.
Oftentimes, yes, the interpretation of the faith is a large factor in terrorism for both Islam and Christianity. Obviously, most followers of both will not become terrorists, and the main victims of both have been people inside their faith that aren't deemed "the right type of x" or "not x enough".
Unless an AR-15 is fully automatic - and those ones are extremely heavily regulated and very difficult to get - it's not a machine gun. Since he apparently bought it a few days before the shooting, it's highly unlikely it was an automatic gun.
It's true, you shouldn't blame all of Islam, or all Muslims for this; but at the same time, Islam clearly played some role. Islam didn't have nothing to do with it, and it didn't have everything to do with it, but it was some part of what happened.
Fair enough. I think a President would at least have a hard time dealing with Congress after a self-pardon, but whether they'd be impeached or not depends on who controls Congress and how much their party likes them, I guess. It should probably be pretty much an automatic thing though.
I agree to an extent. Laws that people are routinely not prosecuted under should probably go, but I don't think mandatory prosecution is a good idea either.
Not necessarily. If someone wasn't going to vote because both candidates are repulsive to them, third party votes at least get them a little engaged and provide important information on what people want. The more third party voters there are, the more likely it is that the system could be changed.
In all seriousness, both are possible. He may get tired of the restrictions placed on the POTUS, dealing with other leaders, etc. And I expect that if he's elected, there will be more assassination attempts than usual.
A president can pardon themselves of anything not related to impeachment. Nixon wasn't impeached, he resigned first, but Congress could have impeached him even after a pardon.
Why vote for either of them? Vote third party. It doesn't have to be a choice between the lesser of two evils - it could be a choice between the lesser of three or four evils!
If he likes Rand Paul, he'd probably support Gary Johnson (campaign slogan: "Feel the Johnson!") over Trump, as Paul and Johnson are both right-libertarians, while Trump is far more fascist. I don't know how someone admires both Paul and Putin though, that doesn't make any sense to me.
If he actually has evidence, publishing it is the farthest thing from anti-American. Americans should know as much as possible about their presidential candidates; making proof of wrongdoing publicly available is, IMO, patriotic.
She stored classified information on a non-approved device. That is illegal. What her aides did was also illegal, and all of them should be prosecuted.
He had a history of alleged (and, IMO, probable) domestic violence, but no convictions or restraining orders. Allegations should not be enough to prevent someone from buying a gun.
About 2/3 of gun deaths in America are suicides. In countries that have banned or severely restricted guns, long-term suicide rates are unchanged. Therefore, 2/3 of those deaths should not be counted when we're talking about "gun violence". In addition, this comment breaks the relative risks down; if you are in America and aren't in a gang, your risk is about on par with most of Europe.
This CDC study says that the use of guns for defensive purposes is actually quite common, and is an effective crime deterrent.
Yep, your gun crime is way lower than the US, but your murder rate kept following the same trend before and after the gun restrictions took hold. If banning guns drops the gun crime rate but not the murder rate, does that really matter?
Sure, most of the people who died in the USSR and China were because of bad economic systems, but there were also plenty of religious groups that were heavily suppressed and some of their members killed too. Religion often plays a role; it's by no means the only motivator, but it is important. Maajid Nawaz has written a few very good books on the subject; it's not just econ or foreign policy, although those are certainly part of it.
It's also pretty funny that immediately after you say "Stop trying to reduce complex events to simple single sentence answers" you blame it all just on crony capitalism. Incidentally, while crony capitalism has certainly started some wars, religion, mercantilism, and plain old racism have caused more wars by far, historically speaking. Don't forget that we're in one of the periods of history with the smallest percentage of people dying due to conflicts.
Yeah, but most of the security personnel are at the gates, and depending on how large the base is, may have a not insignificant response time, especially if alarms aren't sounded quickly. There also aren't actually that many cops around on most bases; bases with secret or dangerous stuff have plenty, but around office buildings and residential areas there aren't many. I worked on an AFB for several years; I know what those kind of bases look like.
Yes, the commander can issue guns and ammo in case of an attack - but that takes time to do, and if you'll notice, both of the events you cited only lasted ten minutes or less. You couldn't have raised the alarm, told the commander, got people to the armory, gotten guns and ammo, and then gotten to the shooter in that amount of time if you wanted to respond with normal troops. I do work at a place with its own police, and - surprise - they still have to know something is happening in order to respond. It's kind of hard to do that in less than ten minutes when it's an office building and people are more concerned with getting away than calling the cops.
No, they aren't full of people with guns. There are guys with guns around the perimeter, and some cops around, but not all that many, especially inside buildings. They're mostly trained to respond to attacks from outside the base, not from a shooter inside a building. Once you're inside the base, you're often surrounded by people who aren't armed at all.
Slashdot Mirror
You could estimate that, but I doubt it'll be all that accurate. Don't forget that the Crusades were a response to the Muslim conquest of North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. Also don't forget that most of the people killed by Muslims are themselves Muslims.
I'm pretty sure he wanted to make gay people feel afraid to express themselves. How is that not terrorism?
Well, most of those attacks were done by members of radical Islamic groups, so...
Stalin killed most of his people through incompetence and bad economics. They largely were not killed by violence, although he certainly used a lot of that too.
Oftentimes, yes, the interpretation of the faith is a large factor in terrorism for both Islam and Christianity. Obviously, most followers of both will not become terrorists, and the main victims of both have been people inside their faith that aren't deemed "the right type of x" or "not x enough".
Unless an AR-15 is fully automatic - and those ones are extremely heavily regulated and very difficult to get - it's not a machine gun. Since he apparently bought it a few days before the shooting, it's highly unlikely it was an automatic gun.
There's a whole lot of porn on Twitter. They usually only care if you post it and don't mark it as such.
It's true, you shouldn't blame all of Islam, or all Muslims for this; but at the same time, Islam clearly played some role. Islam didn't have nothing to do with it, and it didn't have everything to do with it, but it was some part of what happened.
The joke wouldn't have worked as well that way.
Fair enough. I think a President would at least have a hard time dealing with Congress after a self-pardon, but whether they'd be impeached or not depends on who controls Congress and how much their party likes them, I guess. It should probably be pretty much an automatic thing though.
I agree to an extent. Laws that people are routinely not prosecuted under should probably go, but I don't think mandatory prosecution is a good idea either.
Not necessarily. If someone wasn't going to vote because both candidates are repulsive to them, third party votes at least get them a little engaged and provide important information on what people want. The more third party voters there are, the more likely it is that the system could be changed.
Yes.
In all seriousness, both are possible. He may get tired of the restrictions placed on the POTUS, dealing with other leaders, etc. And I expect that if he's elected, there will be more assassination attempts than usual.
With the current system, yes, but the more people who challenge it, the more likely we are to be able to change it.
That is puzzling; maybe he was hoping he wouldn't have to intervene?
A president can pardon themselves of anything not related to impeachment. Nixon wasn't impeached, he resigned first, but Congress could have impeached him even after a pardon.
I dunno, it depends on who Trump picks as his running mate. I don't know how long he'd actually last.
Why vote for either of them? Vote third party. It doesn't have to be a choice between the lesser of two evils - it could be a choice between the lesser of three or four evils!
If he likes Rand Paul, he'd probably support Gary Johnson (campaign slogan: "Feel the Johnson!") over Trump, as Paul and Johnson are both right-libertarians, while Trump is far more fascist. I don't know how someone admires both Paul and Putin though, that doesn't make any sense to me.
If he actually has evidence, publishing it is the farthest thing from anti-American. Americans should know as much as possible about their presidential candidates; making proof of wrongdoing publicly available is, IMO, patriotic.
She stored classified information on a non-approved device. That is illegal. What her aides did was also illegal, and all of them should be prosecuted.
He had a history of alleged (and, IMO, probable) domestic violence, but no convictions or restraining orders. Allegations should not be enough to prevent someone from buying a gun.
About 2/3 of gun deaths in America are suicides. In countries that have banned or severely restricted guns, long-term suicide rates are unchanged. Therefore, 2/3 of those deaths should not be counted when we're talking about "gun violence". In addition, this comment breaks the relative risks down; if you are in America and aren't in a gang, your risk is about on par with most of Europe.
This CDC study says that the use of guns for defensive purposes is actually quite common, and is an effective crime deterrent.
Yep, your gun crime is way lower than the US, but your murder rate kept following the same trend before and after the gun restrictions took hold. If banning guns drops the gun crime rate but not the murder rate, does that really matter?
Sure, most of the people who died in the USSR and China were because of bad economic systems, but there were also plenty of religious groups that were heavily suppressed and some of their members killed too. Religion often plays a role; it's by no means the only motivator, but it is important. Maajid Nawaz has written a few very good books on the subject; it's not just econ or foreign policy, although those are certainly part of it.
It's also pretty funny that immediately after you say "Stop trying to reduce complex events to simple single sentence answers" you blame it all just on crony capitalism. Incidentally, while crony capitalism has certainly started some wars, religion, mercantilism, and plain old racism have caused more wars by far, historically speaking. Don't forget that we're in one of the periods of history with the smallest percentage of people dying due to conflicts.
Yeah, but most of the security personnel are at the gates, and depending on how large the base is, may have a not insignificant response time, especially if alarms aren't sounded quickly. There also aren't actually that many cops around on most bases; bases with secret or dangerous stuff have plenty, but around office buildings and residential areas there aren't many. I worked on an AFB for several years; I know what those kind of bases look like.
Yes, the commander can issue guns and ammo in case of an attack - but that takes time to do, and if you'll notice, both of the events you cited only lasted ten minutes or less. You couldn't have raised the alarm, told the commander, got people to the armory, gotten guns and ammo, and then gotten to the shooter in that amount of time if you wanted to respond with normal troops. I do work at a place with its own police, and - surprise - they still have to know something is happening in order to respond. It's kind of hard to do that in less than ten minutes when it's an office building and people are more concerned with getting away than calling the cops.
No, they aren't full of people with guns. There are guys with guns around the perimeter, and some cops around, but not all that many, especially inside buildings. They're mostly trained to respond to attacks from outside the base, not from a shooter inside a building. Once you're inside the base, you're often surrounded by people who aren't armed at all.