gatorguy said: [...] the relative sparseness of major events in the US as compared to Europe for instance is testament to the excellent work of our policing agencies (FBI/CIA/NSA/Local agencies) made possible by the tools they have available to them.
Is the difference the result of law enforcement resources and practices, or is it just that the long distance and oceans between hostile territories and the United States make it expensive and inconvenient for foreigners to pop in and blow things up?
It's a function of both. We get fewer legal and illegal refugees and we do more regarding security. In general we're a harder target than any of the EU countries with porous borders and larger Muslim populations to hide bad actors.
But ultimately any country is just a plane flight away.
Plus, if an Islamist wanted to kill Americans, for over a decade we've provided them with plenty of (hard) targets in the Middle East. No need to travel to do so.
Canada has quite welcoming immigration and refugee policies and a multi-cultural population, yet doesn't seem to have a serious terrorism problem. That might contradict the assertion that immigration policy has much influence on terrorism.
Um, 35K Syrian refugees in Canada vs 14K in the US vs 350K in Germany.
There's a significant difference between the problems the EU faces and what we in the US and Canada face due to the sheer numbers alone.
Quite welcoming is 350K and not 35K. You accepted 350K Hong Kong residents and I recall quite a few "unwelcoming" commentary regarding that.
Just to clarify (not being snarky): are you saying that with increased numbers of Syrian refugees comes an increase in terrorism?
Yes, because that have 300K more individuals to sort through to look for bad apples. The pool of potential individuals that can be radicalized once their initial appreciation for being welcomed wears off and the day to day issues of being poor and underemployed settles in is larger than what we have to deal with.
That's ignoring that otherwise assimilated middle/upper income individuals have been successfully radicalized.
That's ignoring that otherwise assimilated middle/upper income individuals have been successfully radicalized.
I realize that for others, understanding of a concept must be taken one step at a time, but it would be helpful to say "successfully converted to Islam," as the statement means the same thing but isn't mired in artificial "compromise" or weasel words.
This is how the system is set up and if they want in then they need to do it legally. It's that simple.
Why do people give away their freedoms and rights for FAKE security? The Terrorist Threat in almost nonexistent and not worth your freedoms and our money. We spend billions for security to protect us from absolutely nothing when it comes to this statistically. It's all FAKE and agenda driven. Here a list of thing that REALLY kill American's so maybe we should ban these things. How many people die from T in the USA each year? Almost none. Only 30 people have died from terrorism since 2001. More Americans have died from squirrel and raccoon attacks than have died from terrorism since 9/11.
Let's do the math... 30 people since 9/11 is less than 2 people a year. If you include 9/11 it's 178 a year. Still way less...
- Slip and Falls "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over one million Americans suffer a slip, trip, and fall injury and over 17, 000 people die in the U.S. annually because of these injuries."
- Bicycles "In 2015 in the United States, over 1,000 bicyclists died and there were almost 467,000 bicycle-related injuries."
- 300,000Americans die of obesity every year.
- 40,000 Americans per year die of car accidents.
- 550,000 Americans per year die of cancer.
- Drowning 2000
- Poisoning 39,000
- Fires 2700
Chocking 2500
So sad!
No idea where you got your figures. it amounts to fake math. Nearly 50 were killed in the Pulse Nightclub attack alone. Your figure is so ridiculously far off-base it's not even worth considering in your argument. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html
But for giggles even if you were close (it is not) the relative sparseness of major events in the US as compared to Europe for instance is testament to the excellent work of our policing agencies (FBI/CIA/NSA/Local agencies) made possible by the tools they have available to them. You think it would improve things to deny them the tools?
Typical uninformed paranoid government takeover advocate... talking about deaths in the USA. Not overseas? Yikes, you must be a Republican and work for Trump? So you in favor than for us to give up our right to protect us from almost a non-existent threat. You do realize that all is this is used to promote a agenda and that agenda is for you to have no right and freedom in the name of security.
Last time I checked Orlando was in the US. The problem with zealots, left or right, is that they tend to ignore facts and get all defensive when very obvious mistakes are pointed out. Trump does this a lot but it's also an ultra liberal thing too.
It takes away from the point you had when you get all defensive when someone points out that the Pulse Nightclub attack resulted in 49 deaths...or 19 more than what you claimed happened since 2001. A rational person would have said "Oh yeah, my bad. The corrected figures are X." as opposed to engaging in a wierd ad-hom.
I guess pigs are flying since I'm defending Gatorguy. This unnatural behavior is why this stuff should be in Political Outsider.
I don't need perfect facts. The point is valid. It doesn't matter how many attacks there have been or if my death numbers by other things are perfect. It still holds true...
I'll repeat it slowly for you.
I'll repeat it slowly for you. Engaging in false "facts" detracts from whatever point you had...especially since you're probably off by more than an order of magnitude.
Further, your point ignores that we do spend money on some of those other causes of death and more importantly you ignore that some forms deaths have a disproportionate impact on the community.
Presumably death from school bus accidents outnumber deaths from school shootings but the impact to the community and survivors is greater for attacks than from tragic accidents.
We accept that folks die from slips and falls, car accidents and excessive super sized hamburgers with fries. Each death is a tragedy but a personal one, not a community or societal one. I assert that attacks that harm the belief that you are safe have more profound impact on the society and warrants extraordinary reaction in comparison to the absolute number of deaths and that behavior is ingrained in human society.
Its one thing if Og and his family dies of disease. Its sad but it happens. It's different when Og and his family dies in their home from a marauding tribe. You make more spears and a wall and go kill them if you can.
[...] You accepted 350K Hong Kong residents and I recall quite a few "unwelcoming" commentary regarding that.
I'm no expert on the matter and I don't even know if other Canadians would share my opinions, but my take on what caused friction during the HK influx was the development of a sub-community that didn't seem particularly interested in integrating or interacting with other groups. That's atypical in our experience. While people from other countries maintain a strong cultural identity, there's almost always been a desire for that culture to become a component of a larger, inclusive "group of groups."
35K individuals in a country pretty much has to assimilate...especially scattered over a wider area. 350K does not...especially if they are, by choice or design, geographically concentrated in either a slum or an affluent area.
As Vancouver has discovered, when half the population is of one culture/ethnicity they have sufficient mass to make their own rules and affect what the cultural norms are (street signs, language, etc).
That's ignoring that otherwise assimilated middle/upper income individuals have been successfully radicalized.
I realize that for others, understanding of a concept must be taken one step at a time, but it would be helpful to say "successfully converted to Islam," as the statement means the same thing but isn't mired in artificial "compromise" or weasel words.
Given I know a small number of current and former service members that are Muslim I shall respond with a hearty fuck you and ask what the hell have you done for your country that they have not?
You make more spears and a wall and go kill them if you can.
See, that’s the most important thing. All of this unconstitutional bullshit and destruction of our freedoms DOESN’T HAVE TO HAPPEN if you just close the borders and refuse to let anyone in. That an entire political party (and half of another one) has decided that treason is okay to commit isn’t relevant to the objective nature of the concept of physical security and the right to privacy.
You make more spears and a wall and go kill them if you can.
See, that’s the most important thing. All of this unconstitutional bullshit and destruction of our freedoms DOESN’T HAVE TO HAPPEN if you just close the borders and refuse to let anyone in. That an entire political party (and half of another one) has decided that treason is okay to commit isn’t relevant to the objective nature of the concept of physical security and the right to privacy.
Sure, now that you and yours are settled, please close the door behind you, huh? I'm sure your view would be different if your sister was living in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Syria, and wanted to join you in the United States.
I'm also sure that comment will just spur you on to another vitriolic tirade. I'll try harder to resist responding to that one.
[...] You accepted 350K Hong Kong residents and I recall quite a few "unwelcoming" commentary regarding that.
I'm no expert on the matter and I don't even know if other Canadians would share my opinions, but my take on what caused friction during the HK influx was the development of a sub-community that didn't seem particularly interested in integrating or interacting with other groups. That's atypical in our experience. While people from other countries maintain a strong cultural identity, there's almost always been a desire for that culture to become a component of a larger, inclusive "group of groups."
35K individuals in a country pretty much has to assimilate...especially scattered over a wider area. 350K does not...especially if they are, by choice or design, geographically concentrated in either a slum or an affluent area.
As Vancouver has discovered, when half the population is of one culture/ethnicity they have sufficient mass to make their own rules and affect what the cultural norms are (street signs, language, etc).
Plus Quebec.
I won't pretend to have any idea how to interpret the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the country so I'll just leave it alone.
Vancouver has forced me to ask myself some difficult questions. If a vendor in Richmond wants to cater to Chinese customers, and sees no reason to bother with English signage, is that cause for concern, or is that a reflection of her freedom as a Canadian to conduct her business however the hell she wants? As a white anglophone, should I be offended that I can't read the sign on the front of her store? Should I care that the vendor doesn't consider me part of her target market? Why would I want to do business with someone who isn't interested in serving me? Is it cultural evolution at work or a hostile takeover? Even if it's the latter, can or should anything be done to stop it?
Sure, now that you and yours are settled, please close the door behind you, huh?
Explain why I am forced to admit people into my country against my will. Explain why I am forced to lower my QoL and raise my taxes on the behalf of those who want my country destroyed.
I'm sure your view would be different if your sister was living in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Syria, and wanted to join you in the United States.
It would not. If you have nothing but appeals to emotion, feel free to stop posting entirely. But not before you answer my question in post 77 on the last page.
…vitriolic tirade.
Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.
I'll try harder to resist responding to that one.
Ah, so you are a coward. Thanks for admitting that you believe that innocent life does not have value. Your statements on the ownership of firearms are now invalid.
In otherwords do not take your smart phone with you. Purchase a local pre-paid phone, and when you get ready to return home put this phone in a microwave cook it out and throw it away.
Sure, now that you and yours are settled, please close the door behind you, huh?
Explain why I am forced to admit people into my country against my will. Explain why I am forced to lower my QoL and raise my taxes on the behalf of those who want my country destroyed.
I'm sure your view would be different if your sister was living in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Syria, and wanted to join you in the United States.
It would not. If you have nothing but appeals to emotion, feel free to stop posting entirely. But not before you answer my question in post 77 on the last page.
…vitriolic tirade.
Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.
I'll try harder to resist responding to that one.
Ah, so you are a coward. Thanks for admitting that you believe that innocent life does not have value. Your statements on the ownership of firearms are now invalid.
First, immigration is one reason the US is strong and our demographics doesn't look like Japan with more and more old people and a younger population that doesn't want to have kids. Some monocultural EU countries look similar to Japan.
So they are not lowering your QoL, they also pay taxes and while younger families are a net loss to the tax base (because kids cost money to educate) the overall economic benefit makes having motivated families join your country a net gain and eventually they will be carrying your sorry ass via Medicare and other services when you are a doddering curmudgeon. Which may be now.
How do you know they are motivated? They got off their asses and got thier families out of dodge. The short sighted or lazy folks (or just unlucky) died in place or continue to live in poverty. That doesn't mean every immigrant is a winner but as a pool they are survivors of one of the remaining primary evolutionary pressures on humans (i.e. other humans, large scale natural disasters, etc).
The key is the rate of immigration and the ability to assimilate them. Too many, too fast and you have this huge foreign lump that ends up in slums, feels disengaged/resentful and easily manipulated into being a problem.
Second, it is a fallacy to equate the value of gun ownership to the value of the lives and safety of innocents.
When there isn't rule of law, security is local and threats (animals or other people with guns) are commonplace then the best way to insure the safety of innocents (especially your own) is unrestricted private ownership of superior firepower.
When there is rule of law, security is provided as part of the commons, and a low amount of threats then the primary risk of violent death is accident or an attack by a relative/friend/neighbor (mental illness, jealousy, murder suicide, etc) then the best way to insure the safety of innocents (especially your own) is laws to reduce the odds that the whack job is heavily armed and minimize the probability that your idiot neighbor's kid is showing off his dad's loaded glock that he keeps unsecured in the nightstand because he's unwilling to pony up a hundred bucks for a small biometric gun safe that is mostly kid safe but still allows fairly rapid access (when it works...if it's not reliable, pony up $200).
If you can't get to your shotgun in your closet safe while armed you were fucked anyway.
That and most suburban rambos have no fucking clue where his clear lanes of fire are (wanna bet 90% of master bedroom doorways shoot into adjoining bedrooms?), haven't been to a range in forever, never fired his gun in the dark (while not drunk that one time), never fired his gun while holding a flashlight, and never had any sort of stress training with firearms.
That synopsis (excepting knowing where my rounds will end up when I will invariably miss) includes me. One of these days I will pony up the time and money for a couple tactical pistol classes but hey, I said that 20 years ago.
Most 1st world citizens live closer in the spectrum to the second scenario excepting folks in rural areas and inner cities that have high crime rates. Given that, most 1st world nations have opted for more restrictions on the ownership of guns rather than less.
It remains my position that the US should either adopt the Swiss model (every able bodied adult that isn't a felon is part of the state militia, gets firearms and civil defense/disaster relief training, keeps a M4 in a secure locker and must pass annual proficiency and mental illness checks) or the Australian model i.e. get rid of all guns that you can.
The first is far more in line with the 2nd amendment (and has far more regulation and requirements for responsible gun ownership than we have today) and the latter far more in line with living in a 1st world, 21st century (sub)urban environment.
Neither are likely to happen because dumbasses on both sides of the gun issue think there's a seven word answer to highly complex issues or a single stupid litmus test that settles everything.
Comments
That's ignoring that otherwise assimilated middle/upper income individuals have been successfully radicalized.
Further, your point ignores that we do spend money on some of those other causes of death and more importantly you ignore that some forms deaths have a disproportionate impact on the community.
Presumably death from school bus accidents outnumber deaths from school shootings but the impact to the community and survivors is greater for attacks than from tragic accidents.
We accept that folks die from slips and falls, car accidents and excessive super sized hamburgers with fries. Each death is a tragedy but a personal one, not a community or societal one. I assert that attacks that harm the belief that you are safe have more profound impact on the society and warrants extraordinary reaction in comparison to the absolute number of deaths and that behavior is ingrained in human society.
Its one thing if Og and his family dies of disease. Its sad but it happens. It's different when Og and his family dies in their home from a marauding tribe. You make more spears and a wall and go kill them if you can.
As Vancouver has discovered, when half the population is of one culture/ethnicity they have sufficient mass to make their own rules and affect what the cultural norms are (street signs, language, etc).
Plus Quebec.
How that for weasel words?
I'm also sure that comment will just spur you on to another vitriolic tirade. I'll try harder to resist responding to that one.
I won't pretend to have any idea how to interpret the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the country so I'll just leave it alone.
Vancouver has forced me to ask myself some difficult questions. If a vendor in Richmond wants to cater to Chinese customers, and sees no reason to bother with English signage, is that cause for concern, or is that a reflection of her freedom as a Canadian to conduct her business however the hell she wants? As a white anglophone, should I be offended that I can't read the sign on the front of her store? Should I care that the vendor doesn't consider me part of her target market? Why would I want to do business with someone who isn't interested in serving me? Is it cultural evolution at work or a hostile takeover? Even if it's the latter, can or should anything be done to stop it?
If I come up with any answers I'll let you know!
It would not. If you have nothing but appeals to emotion, feel free to stop posting entirely. But not before you answer my question in post 77 on the last page.
Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.
Ah, so you are a coward. Thanks for admitting that you believe that innocent life does not have value. Your statements on the ownership of firearms are now invalid.
So they are not lowering your QoL, they also pay taxes and while younger families are a net loss to the tax base (because kids cost money to educate) the overall economic benefit makes having motivated families join your country a net gain and eventually they will be carrying your sorry ass via Medicare and other services when you are a doddering curmudgeon. Which may be now.
How do you know they are motivated? They got off their asses and got thier families out of dodge. The short sighted or lazy folks (or just unlucky) died in place or continue to live in poverty. That doesn't mean every immigrant is a winner but as a pool they are survivors of one of the remaining primary evolutionary pressures on humans (i.e. other humans, large scale natural disasters, etc).
The key is the rate of immigration and the ability to assimilate them. Too many, too fast and you have this huge foreign lump that ends up in slums, feels disengaged/resentful and easily manipulated into being a problem.
Second, it is a fallacy to equate the value of gun ownership to the value of the lives and safety of innocents.
When there isn't rule of law, security is local and threats (animals or other people with guns) are commonplace then the best way to insure the safety of innocents (especially your own) is unrestricted private ownership of superior firepower.
When there is rule of law, security is provided as part of the commons, and a low amount of threats then the primary risk of violent death is accident or an attack by a relative/friend/neighbor (mental illness, jealousy, murder suicide, etc) then the best way to insure the safety of innocents (especially your own) is laws to reduce the odds that the whack job is heavily armed and minimize the probability that your idiot neighbor's kid is showing off his dad's loaded glock that he keeps unsecured in the nightstand because he's unwilling to pony up a hundred bucks for a small biometric gun safe that is mostly kid safe but still allows fairly rapid access (when it works...if it's not reliable, pony up $200).
If you can't get to your shotgun in your closet safe while armed you were fucked anyway.
That and most suburban rambos have no fucking clue where his clear lanes of fire are (wanna bet 90% of master bedroom doorways shoot into adjoining bedrooms?), haven't been to a range in forever, never fired his gun in the dark (while not drunk that one time), never fired his gun while holding a flashlight, and never had any sort of stress training with firearms.
That synopsis (excepting knowing where my rounds will end up when I will invariably
miss) includes me. One of these days I will pony up the time and money for a couple tactical pistol classes but hey, I said that 20 years ago.
Most 1st world citizens live closer in the spectrum to the second scenario excepting folks in rural areas and inner cities that have high crime rates. Given that, most 1st world nations have opted for more restrictions on the ownership of guns rather than less.
It remains my position that the US should either adopt the Swiss model (every able bodied adult that isn't a felon is part of the state militia, gets firearms and civil defense/disaster relief training, keeps a M4 in a secure locker and must pass annual proficiency and mental illness checks) or the Australian model i.e. get rid of all guns that you can.
The first is far more in line with the 2nd amendment (and has far more regulation and requirements for responsible gun ownership than we have today) and the latter far more in line with living in a 1st world, 21st century (sub)urban environment.
Neither are likely to happen because dumbasses on both sides of the gun issue think there's a seven word answer to highly complex issues or a single stupid litmus test that settles everything.