Turn on thread page Beta

There is no double standard for white mass murderers watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bammy jastard 27)
    People with knives, people with ropes, people with fists, people with 'insert any object here'

    I'm having fun on this and just thought I'd do that quote but I'm being semi genuine. If someone wants to kill somebody else taking away a gun isn't going to stop them from finding another way.
    You are completely correct. The only logical solution the the problem of murder is to remove the crime from the staute books.
    No more murders.
    QED.

    You, sir, are a certified genius!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Right but people with fists can't kill 17 children in a school. Neither can people with knives. People with guns can though.
    Yeah, but think about what he's saying.
    If you can't stop every crime, what's the point of trying to stop any crime?
    Brilliant!
    Just.
    Brilliant.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    You are completely correct. The only logical solution the the problem of murder is to remove the crime from the staute books.
    No more murders.
    QED.

    You, sir, are a certified genius!
    Thanks for recognising my genius.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Yeah, but think about what he's saying.
    If you can't stop every crime, what's the point of trying to stop any crime?
    Brilliant!
    Just.
    Brilliant.
    So rather than banning guns just get rid of people.

    Problem solved
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Are you really contending that a knife is the same as a gun? They're a world apart - even the most dedicated killer would find it near impossible to kill many people with a knife before being stopped, whilst a tosser with an AK could happily kill dozens of people within a minute.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bammy jastard 27)
    You're focusing too much on the knife comment. Like I said, what stops said person from getting a car and doing the same thing?

    Or getting some bottles of Alcohol and a lighter and making molotovs?
    OK. Lets just ban the sale or possession of any item whose designed primary purpose is the killing of another living being.

    That suit you?
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    OK. Lets just ban the sale or possession of any item whose designed primary purpose is the killing of another living being.

    That suit you?
    The funniest thing about this is that I'm all for a gun ban.

    What sane person wants a mentally ill teenager in possession of an assault rifle ffs.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    No,no,no!

    The KKK are a terrorist organisations and they do commit unlawful acts and threats toward civilians because of their anti-Black, anti-Catholic, anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, and white-supremacist agenda. Charlottesville attacks where KKK members killed black activists I can name many more unlawful activities, the truth is he was involved with a banned terrorist organisation whether this attack was to do with the KKK is still unclear.
    The KKK is not a banned, terrorist organisation.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Well it's self explanatory, terror is what they cause, regardless of their cause or motives.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Moved to Society.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    Trump is a right winger yes, he had been a democrat but he definitely is a republican for the moment. He did say that in a speech yes, but given how he begun his first year as president, he definitely did not intend for it to be a Muslim ban. The fact that it was Obama left over legislation further supports that.
    Not all right wingers call for a Muslim ban, some may do but that is unreasonable and solves nothing. Being more mindful of applications from countries that sponsor terror is reasonable, as should be the job of immigration to ensure no one with mal-intent enters the country. I am being honest in that regard
    Guns are also an effective tool for self defence. In other countries, and in years gone past here, having a handgun meant that statistically something like a robbery at an household would be less likely to succeed. Gun control is not an effective measure, if people have Mal intent, they won’t bother jumping through legal loopholes to obtain guns... they’ll just illegally obtain them, meaning being ultra restrictive with guns at the end of the day isn’t as effective as one might believe. I think it would be a double standard to monitor specific people and profiling them. I think that is discriminatory, and limits personal freedoms. It is a necessity with boarder controls because these people aren’t necessarily British citizens, and should go through such checks. What I would ask is why law enforcement aren’t effective enough at acting upon information given to them from the public ( we’ve seen that in the last few massacres in both the US and here) and why didn’t they pay attention to the severity of it.
    Has Trump gone back on his word and admitted it was wrong? No. So wanting to introduce a Muslim ban remains as part of his political views and it is also part of the reason why some other right-wingers voted for him. His supporters, the same ones who claim that guns don't kill people are the ones who wanted to ban Muslims. How is that not hypocritical? It's also interesting that Trump supporters always bring up Obama and Clinton when they cannot really defend him. That's what we call whataboutery.

    Also, how can gun control be discriminatory when it applies to everyone? Which country that has introduced gun control has the same issue with mass shootings as America does? None of us here is saying that we shouldn't have border control, we are pointing out the double standards when it comes to certain groups reactions after an Islamist terror attack vs when there is a mass shooting. That boils down to wanting to introduce extreme policies in one case but not wanting to implement any new policies at all in the other case.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Eunomia)
    Has Trump gone back on his word and admitted it was wrong? No. So wanting to introduce a Muslim ban remains as part of his political views and it is also part of the reason why some other right-wingers voted for him. His supporters, the same ones who claim that guns don't kill people are the ones who wanted to ban Muslims. How is that not hypocritical? It's also interesting that Trump supporters always bring up Obama and Clinton when they cannot really defend him. That's what we call whataboutery.

    Also, how can gun control be discriminatory when it applies to everyone? Which country that has introduced gun control has the same issue with mass shootings as America does? None of us here is saying that we shouldn't have border control, we are pointing out the double standards when it comes to certain groups reactions after an Islamist terror attack vs when there is a mass shooting. That boils down to wanting to introduce extreme policies in one case but not wanting to implement any new policies at all in the other case.
    He’s not brought up a Muslim ban in quite a while, and when he installed a ban last time, it wasn’t specifically against Muslims and the counties it targeted were not far enough. I brought up Obama because it was Obama’s legislation, so it’s on topic to what I’m saying (Trump has managed a lot, I can’t defend him on every action taken, but it’s not fair to demonise him)
    My comment about discriminatory control was about extra surveillance on Muslim Communities, which you brought up, and I stand by my comment. It is discriminatory and there are much better ways of law enforcement whilst preserving personal liberties.
    Suggesting more surveillance after an extremist attack, and suggesting a gun ban after a mass shooting are cut from the same thread: undermining personal liberties to defend the paternalistic nature of the state.
    If you compare mass shooting per capita... I think you find America actually has less in that sense compared to some EU countries. It’s just American shootings get more media coverage...
    Name:  F15C0E0F-589D-49CB-B98D-66DAC7C976CF.jpg.jpeg
Views: 16
Size:  37.4 KB
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I remember debating one of these lists of all of the white supremacist ‘terrorist attacks’ with someone before, on a lot of the entries there was practically no detail and I remember one in particular that I was googling to find a news story about but couldn’t find anything at all. A lot of them, to me, appeared to hate crimes and I think people misunderstand the line between hate crime and terrorism
    Yeah, and it's a pretty broad sweep of "right wing" ideologies, some having nothing to do with one another at all, stretching pretty far back in time.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by looloo2134)
    Muslims are only 1% of the America population if what say 12.4% of attacks are by Muslims. That make Muslim Americans 12 times more likely do a terrorist attacks than other Americans.
    About 10% of domestic terrorism is left wing (including animal rights). Most of the rest is by the extreme right. And how many people in the US are extreme right? Probably a lot fewer than the number of Muslims. Since 9/11, there have been 22 fatal Extreme Right attacks and 11 fatal attacks by Muslims.
    You are right that Muslim Americans are 12 times more likely to commit an attack than an average American. By the same logic, even if the Extreme Right numbered a million (which I doubt) that would make them 4 times more likely to kill someone in a terrorist attack than a Muslim, and 48 times more likely to do a terrorist attack than other Americans.

    And which group has the travel ban?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Are you implying that anyone who carries out an attack or killing must therefore be insane? Because that simply isn't the case. Perfectly sane, healthy people can and do carry out these acts of evil on a regular basis. Were the Nazis all mentally ill? The fascist party in Italy? ISIS? The Taliban? No, they weren't. Recent history is filled with killers and murderers who were all mentally healthy. Mental insanity is not a requirement to do evil.

    Ask yourself why every murderer and violent person isn't in a mental hospital.
    Let's take their labels of murders ect, away from them. What are they? Human beings.

    The Nazi's were brainwashed from young ages by their governments and I'm not condoning what Hitler did, but he did have a rough past. He wasn't born evil, he was made.

    The fascist party in Italy is fascist for a reason. Before we give them a label don't you think we should ask them: "Why do you have such beliefs?" "What has driven you to believe such things?" And the same thing for extremist groups?

    All the killers, and mass murders, shouldn't we ask them why they committed their crime?

    Obviously, whatever made them commit their crime is no excuse for their crime but if we just call them names, and lock them up, they'll never learn. I'm not saying we shouldn't lock them up, of course they need to serve time for their crime. But maybe if we listened to their viewpoint, we could educate them on why that was not the best way about things. Even if after we've educated them, they still carry on with their wrong ways, then and only then are they truly evil.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Atomic bombs don't kill people, people do. Therefore everyone should have the right to an atomic bomb. Right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    The definition of terrorism tells us that for something to be labelled as terrorism, the perpetrator must have a political aim. If NO political aim can be identified, it simply cannot be called terrorism.
    Which is exactly why the definition of terrorism should be changed altogether. Suppose everyone agreed that the Florida shooter (or any other mass murderer, for that matter) is in fact NOT a terrorist. That would indicate that the victims of the shooting were not terrorised during and by the event. But I'm pretty sure they were. If anyone carries out an act which induces fear, panic and chaos, with the result of injuries, casualties and shock, said person should be considered a terrorist, whether they had a political motive or not. I believe if that was the definition of terrorism since ever, no one would think that there is a double standard about which ethnicity gets the majority of the blame.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -ikram-)
    Which is exactly why the definition of terrorism should be changed altogether. Suppose everyone agreed that the Florida shooter (or any other mass murderer, for that matter) is in fact NOT a terrorist. That would indicate that the victims of the shooting were not terrorised during and by the event. But I'm pretty sure they were. If anyone carries out an act which induces fear, panic and chaos, with the result of injuries, casualties and shock, said person should be considered a terrorist, whether they had a political motive or not. I believe if that was the definition of terrorism since ever, no one would think that there is a double standard about which ethnicity gets the majority of the blame.
    Ok but terrorists used to be Irish for a very long time so your idea that this is somehow a brown people thing the way we label crimes is way off
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ineedtorevise127)
    It is a fair point though. But it is not just about Muslim's. Why is it only white people are seen as 'troubled with mental health.'

    Black criminals get accused of gangbangers, thugs etc...

    Latinos and other immigrants the media makes a narrative that they are nothing but trouble and immigrants are bad people.

    For Muslims media assumes the reason why they did it. If a Muslim shooter had mental health that would be disregarded. Like for Rotherham they always say they did it because they were Muslims. These guys don't even follow Islam themselves they drink, deal drugs, harm to others etc..
    Preach, my friend.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Didn't read the OP.

    I disagree though.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.