A shooting is, obviously, horrible. It goes all over the news. Gun control debates increase. Help and relief is sent. Lawmakers increase the difficulty of obtaining guns. Nowhere, however, is the shooter discussed. The shooter no longer matters. Why no longer matters. The gun has become more important than the shooter, as though it is impossible to prevent deaths. After a speeding and/or car crash, it's the same. Instead of discussing why it's a problem, why he was speeding, why anyone speeds, they propose speed bumps. Speeding, like guns, only exacerbate the problem. The problem is ever-present, but we never try to solve it, only to lessen it. The rhetoric of those that support gun control is the same, banning guns will decrease gun violence. That's obvious. America has higher gun violence, but we have a lot less hammer violence. A lot less knife violence. Gun control isn't in America because a cultural aspect makes it more acceptable this way. But instead of fixing it, we decrease impact. This has to end. But when will they listen to us, a minority? When we're loud enough. Muslim extremists are a minority, but they're loud. That's how a minority gets influence. So let's be loud.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): EE96071625BAAE93D4AD6DA64A3A86C0-9039.jpg (8.8 KB, 300x168, florida-shooting.jpg)
File (): 4ED63D6BBC70C7F13A2A585E69C5AA9D-57125.jpg (55.8 KB, 443x806, Pictured, 9S framing a mac….jpg)
>>118948
Terrorism is not a valid means of imposing change on society, the Muslims have proven that themselves. Instead of 'defeating' us, they only galvanise more and more people against them with each attack. You're a retard for even implying that terrorism is a valid option.
The only answer is to raise awareness of the real problems, to encourage clear and reasoned thought about it rather than emotionally driven hyperbolism. How do we achieve this? The way we've been achieving this for years now, by talking about it wherever we can manage. By speaking the open and unfettered truth, and the fact there are so many attempts at silencing the truth means that not only are we correct, but that they fear that people will listen and turn away from them.
There's no need to fix what ain't broke, it's slow going I know, change always is, but the effort is worth it so we can see a world free of all this some day, and it will have been rightfully fought for and won. Faggot.
Terrorism is not a valid means of imposing change on society, the Muslims have proven that themselves. Instead of 'defeating' us, they only galvanise more and more people against them with each attack. You're a retard for even implying that terrorism is a valid option.
The only answer is to raise awareness of the real problems, to encourage clear and reasoned thought about it rather than emotionally driven hyperbolism. How do we achieve this? The way we've been achieving this for years now, by talking about it wherever we can manage. By speaking the open and unfettered truth, and the fact there are so many attempts at silencing the truth means that not only are we correct, but that they fear that people will listen and turn away from them.
There's no need to fix what ain't broke, it's slow going I know, change always is, but the effort is worth it so we can see a world free of all this some day, and it will have been rightfully fought for and won. Faggot.
>>118948
You are right on this.
Still I have to say that the weapon changes the way you approach a fight.
It is easier to shoot someone from a distance than to go in a stabbing duel.
Killing someone with bare hands is even harder.
If I hear the parents or people that know the shooter I start getting a lot of sympathy for shooters though.
You are right on this.
Still I have to say that the weapon changes the way you approach a fight.
It is easier to shoot someone from a distance than to go in a stabbing duel.
Killing someone with bare hands is even harder.
If I hear the parents or people that know the shooter I start getting a lot of sympathy for shooters though.
>>118983
Apologies, I did not mean to imply a suggestion of terrorism. I meant speaking. However, I believe that if it goes faster, it will be better.
Apologies, I did not mean to imply a suggestion of terrorism. I meant speaking. However, I believe that if it goes faster, it will be better.
>>118983
>Terrorism is not a valid means of imposing change on society, the Muslims have proven that themselves
I'd argue that their approach is working, actually.
In europe at least.
>Instead of 'defeating' us, they only galvanise more and more people against them with each attack.
No, the attacks are not for defeating us. They may be barbarians, but they're not braindead, they know they're not going to convert normal people.
Muslims live here, come here, but this place does not agree with their values and beliefs. They are established in europe, not the majority by far, but just now, a significant demographic. This is the crux.
Do we intend to leave them unhappy, denying them their values and beliefs? Then the social factors of this society were the real cause of radicalisation, and soon enough voices will bubble up calling to change these social factors.
Do we intend to compromise, let them practise their faith within some boundaries? Of course, they already are, but clearly we didn't really take their values and beliefs into account. Some of our own values aren't universal truths anyway… But no, there will always be something we have to deny them.
Or do we intend to give them what they want, live in an islamic state? I don't think I have to explain why I don't like this idea. At least, I don't have to explain it YET.
But every conceivable option in the other direction is very expensive and messy. Anything to restrict them would be perceived as aggresion against that now significant muslim population, and everyone can see this would invite more attacks. Everyone can see that, your proposal to stop the attacks will just invite more attacks. It's essentially declaring war, that's pretty hard to galvanise over.
For them, terrorism is the most valid option.
>clear and reasoned thought about it rather than emotionally driven hyperbolism.
very funny.
>>118948
>let's be loud
I disagree. You may seize opportunities to make yourself known, but being loud won't help. And I've only ever ONCE seen someone orally make a respectable case for inequality, and that was in a 1-on-1 debate with one long-form prepared speech and one long-form improvised reply per candidate. There are things that take much more than thirty seconds to explain, and in most settings you won't get that long even if you're loud.
Research, and bite-size facts will help you, but only in situations where they can be fact-checked.
It is not your duty to right the world's wrongs. It is not your duty to open everyone's eyes. No man can serve such a duty. It is your duty to disseminate breadcrumbs. If you want to be a more active participant, find undelved sources to relay back to places like this. Initiative is still important even in information warfare.
>Terrorism is not a valid means of imposing change on society, the Muslims have proven that themselves
I'd argue that their approach is working, actually.
In europe at least.
>Instead of 'defeating' us, they only galvanise more and more people against them with each attack.
No, the attacks are not for defeating us. They may be barbarians, but they're not braindead, they know they're not going to convert normal people.
Muslims live here, come here, but this place does not agree with their values and beliefs. They are established in europe, not the majority by far, but just now, a significant demographic. This is the crux.
Do we intend to leave them unhappy, denying them their values and beliefs? Then the social factors of this society were the real cause of radicalisation, and soon enough voices will bubble up calling to change these social factors.
Do we intend to compromise, let them practise their faith within some boundaries? Of course, they already are, but clearly we didn't really take their values and beliefs into account. Some of our own values aren't universal truths anyway… But no, there will always be something we have to deny them.
Or do we intend to give them what they want, live in an islamic state? I don't think I have to explain why I don't like this idea. At least, I don't have to explain it YET.
But every conceivable option in the other direction is very expensive and messy. Anything to restrict them would be perceived as aggresion against that now significant muslim population, and everyone can see this would invite more attacks. Everyone can see that, your proposal to stop the attacks will just invite more attacks. It's essentially declaring war, that's pretty hard to galvanise over.
For them, terrorism is the most valid option.
>clear and reasoned thought about it rather than emotionally driven hyperbolism.
very funny.
>>118948
>let's be loud
I disagree. You may seize opportunities to make yourself known, but being loud won't help. And I've only ever ONCE seen someone orally make a respectable case for inequality, and that was in a 1-on-1 debate with one long-form prepared speech and one long-form improvised reply per candidate. There are things that take much more than thirty seconds to explain, and in most settings you won't get that long even if you're loud.
Research, and bite-size facts will help you, but only in situations where they can be fact-checked.
It is not your duty to right the world's wrongs. It is not your duty to open everyone's eyes. No man can serve such a duty. It is your duty to disseminate breadcrumbs. If you want to be a more active participant, find undelved sources to relay back to places like this. Initiative is still important even in information warfare.
>>119397
>It's essentially declaring war
They basically already have declared war on Europe, and the European way of life. What's wrong with finishing what they started?
>It's essentially declaring war
They basically already have declared war on Europe, and the European way of life. What's wrong with finishing what they started?
>>119401
Right now there is a large muslim population, present all throughout the nation, not engaging in violent warfare. That's the difference, and to many people that matters.
I think everyone on here is willing to make some sacrifices like that, but the rest of the population won't stand with you.
Right now there is a large muslim population, present all throughout the nation, not engaging in violent warfare. That's the difference, and to many people that matters.
I think everyone on here is willing to make some sacrifices like that, but the rest of the population won't stand with you.
>>118948
Objectively wrong. Mexico, britcuckland, and Ausfailia are among the countries with the highest percentages of firearm related violence in the world. Likewise those same three are among the tightest in governmental anti-firearm restrictions. This is known as the sliding scale as 99% of the time the ruling government will allow black markets to flourish, selling banned weapons to criminals in order to further their own goals to oppress and suppress societal evolution. When both controlled opposition sides stop trying to slide the problem into "guns are bad and we need to ban/control them", the problem disappears.
Likewise, there is an issue in the US, Cuckanada, Ausfailia, and britcuckland that has gone entirely unnoticed: agitated collaboration. Yes, there are Muslims that commit "acts of terrorism", however, only when goaded on to do so in the name of infiltrated religion do they act. From the period between 1724 to 1947, the world was not terrorized by Muslims as a whole. Only those tiny minorities that relied on the jewish-created shariah law, some of the Shia sects and judeo-anarchist sects were the only ones who committed themselves into causing terror. Monetary cause -> societal effect -> usury of a society itself.
Objectively wrong. Mexico, britcuckland, and Ausfailia are among the countries with the highest percentages of firearm related violence in the world. Likewise those same three are among the tightest in governmental anti-firearm restrictions. This is known as the sliding scale as 99% of the time the ruling government will allow black markets to flourish, selling banned weapons to criminals in order to further their own goals to oppress and suppress societal evolution. When both controlled opposition sides stop trying to slide the problem into "guns are bad and we need to ban/control them", the problem disappears.
Likewise, there is an issue in the US, Cuckanada, Ausfailia, and britcuckland that has gone entirely unnoticed: agitated collaboration. Yes, there are Muslims that commit "acts of terrorism", however, only when goaded on to do so in the name of infiltrated religion do they act. From the period between 1724 to 1947, the world was not terrorized by Muslims as a whole. Only those tiny minorities that relied on the jewish-created shariah law, some of the Shia sects and judeo-anarchist sects were the only ones who committed themselves into causing terror. Monetary cause -> societal effect -> usury of a society itself.
>>119406
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe public opinion everywhere is turning against the muslims. It doesn't matter if most are non-violent, because most still want to turn Europe into one giant caliphate, and refuse to denounce their more violent, crime-committing brethren.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe public opinion everywhere is turning against the muslims. It doesn't matter if most are non-violent, because most still want to turn Europe into one giant caliphate, and refuse to denounce their more violent, crime-committing brethren.
8 replies | 2 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived