The website may be biased, but the polls listed are world recognized polls that are mostly above reproach. Christianity is not at the table on this, nobody is saying that there aren't wackos involved in any religion, but realistically how many christian holy war incidents can you list in the last 20 years? I mean real incidents, not just some random guy doing one thing to a doctor or clinic, but a group of holy christian fighters blowing up swathes of people or beheading them. It's not in the same ballpark, in fact it isn't the same league, or sport.

As far as US international policy goes, we do stupid shit a lot of the time. Other times we get dragged into shit because people complain if we don't. Personally I wish we would cut our defense budget in half and tell the rest of the world to go pound sand when they ask for help, but again it is not the issue of discussion we are looking at.

The issue is whether or not Islam, due to the nature of it's teachings, promotes certain things that lead to war and/or brutal acts. The fact is that it does, assuming you follow the tenets laid forth in the Koran and other works, such as the Sunnah and the anecdotes of the 12 Imams.

What other religion currently follows these tenets in it's religious laws?

- Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate, that is, abandons his or her faith in Islam in order to become an atheist, agnostic or to convert to another religion.
- If a person has never been a Muslim, he or she can live in an Islamic state by accepting to be a dhimmi and pay a Jizyah tax. They cannot practice their religions openly and they also do not have the same rights and legal protections as Muslims.
- Death penalty for Homosexuals
- Numerous women's rights violations and restrictions
- Child marriage
- Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. It is only very recently that it has started to be redefined by a small amount of Muslims as being possible to be non-violent in nature.

As it stands, Islam is not a religion of peace but of strife. Unless you are a casual follower, you will be trying to promote tenets of this religion either through non-violent or violent ways. As we can see around the world and even through the events of the Arab Spring, the violent ways are far more likely.

Brokep's father died. With 50 days left at a maximum security prison for his non-violent copyright offenses, they'll allow him to attend the funeral, yet force him to wear handcuffs while carrying the coffin.

Bleh.

https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-will-wear-handcuffs-to-carry-fathers-coffin-140917/

Cops DO NOT always assume someone is armed and dangerous. That's why they get killed so often. Someone comes in to file a report, you don't assume they are armed and dangerous. Little old ladies...not armed and dangerous. Children...not armed and dangerous. Wives of bikers...not armed and dangerous. Shoplifters....not armed and dangerous.

Guy runs a stop sign...you don't assume he is armed and dangerous. But you have to be aware that the possibility exists. Too many cops have paid the ultimate price for not watching the hands.

Of course, sometimes you are wrong. You can find a video of a shoplifter being detained in Russia...he pulls out a gun and shoots 4 people.

As for pepper-spraying people...I carried pepper spray for 30 yrs, never used it.

If a cop is using it on 'non-violent' protesters sitting in the street, it's because his supervisor said 'clear the street, cars have to move through here'. See...because you've already told 20 people to move out of the street and guess what...they didn't do it.

As for being treated violently by other cops, the reason cop's families don't get treated violently is because they generally don't make meth in their kitchen, they don't engage in violent domestic arguments, etc.

@Jerykk

i am trying to understand your position.
you state you cant regulate addictive substances.
yet we regulate:cigarettes,alcohol.both of these are addictive and both are regulated.

you also infer that if illegal drugs were decriminalized the situation would become far worse.

in relation to what,exactly?
are you positing that if illegal drugs were made legal,illicit drug use would rise? can you provide some evidence to back that up? because i cannot find any...at all.

you appear to actually agree with @SquidCap in regards to the fact that people are going to do what they are going to do but disagree with the idea of regulating the illicit drug trade.

non-regulation=black market=criminality=violence=waste of resources directed towards non-violent citizens doing something they enjoy in the privacy of their own home,with their own body.

so i agree with @SquidCap,i am just unclear where your disagreement lies.
please clarify.

I think you missed the part about focusing on victims, punishing the guilty, and leaving everyone else alone.

I think you'll find that most people that kill others, are already doing something legally prohibited.
Focus on fixing/dealing-wtih those offending individuals.

I know people just want to "do something"... But leave me, my community, everyone else out of it, please. We didn't do it. Thanks.






side note :
Deadliest school killing in the U.S. was done without a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

The alternative to a gun is not merely 'a stick'.
You should read about the lethality of hydrogen sulfide. (Mixing 2 common household cleaners that you probably have right now)
1 breath can hospitalize. The gas commonly kills whoever is exposed, whoever finds them, and 1st responders, and it raises no alarm.
I would /not/ say that's /less/ harm than a gun.
Now think for a second about how much more damage one of those school shooters could have done with a simple super soaker from wal-mart.

Btw, you're already prohibited from owning a gun if you have mental health issues.
Check out ATF form 4473, and the electronic background check (granted some states don't have good records in the check).

Gun control still has 2 flaws.
1) It doesn't get gangsters/criminals to turn in their guns (essentially the entire 'problem population')
2) It puts non-violent people who have prohibited arms in jail - having done no harm.

With 1/3 of a billion people, something extremely rare will seem common if it's constantly reported.
You would live many many many lifetimes before you ever meet someone who knows someone who was shot.
We live in the least violent era of human history.
I feel very safe.

Since you mention an AR15, here's a stat :
In the U.S., more people die each year falling out of bed (~450), than are killed by all rifles combined (including an ar15 with massive 'clip'). The danger isn't as large as people imagine.

-scheherazade

" At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes."

Per year. You don't cite your source, but this is looks to me to be an underestimate. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey there are half about half a million people claiming to be victim of a gun related crime over the course of a year. I remember being a victim of a gun crime in America (the perp was an British-born and educated woman) where the police said that they weren't going to follow things up because they were too busy with more serious crimes and they weren't confident of successful prosecution, they didn't even bother to look at the bullets or interview the perpetrator. I'd be surprised if it was even officially reported for crime statistic purposes.

"So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least."

You didn't discuss the confounding variables.

But nevertheless, nobody is saying that owning guns makes you intrinsically more criminal. The argument here seems to be that criminals or those with criminal intent will find it much easier to acquire firearms when there are hundreds of millions of them distributed in various degrees of security across the US.

And those that have firearms, who are basically normal and moral people, may find themselves in a situation where their firearm is used, even in error, and causes harm - a situation obviously avoided in the absence of firearms and something that isn't necessarily included in crime statistics.

"In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home"

Yes, but here's a fun fact. I've been burgled a few times, all but one of those times I was at home when it happened. You know what the burglar was armed with? Nothing. Do you know what happened when I confronted him with a wooden weapon? He pretended he knew someone that lived there and when that fell through he ran away. When the police apprehended him, there wasn't any consideration that he might be armed with a gun and the police merely put handcuffs on him and he walked to the police car. He swore and made some idle and non-specific threats, according to the police, but that's it. In any event, this isn't extraordinary. There are still too many burglaries that do involve violence, of course.
Many burglaries in Britain are actually vehicle crimes, with opportunity thrown in. That is: The primary purpose of the burglary is to acquire car keys (this is often the easiest way to steal modern vehicles), but they may grab whatever else is valuable and easy too.

"The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings."

What impact did it have on gun prevalence? Not really enough to stop the sentence 'guns are prevalent in the US' from being true....

" So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed."

I missed the part where you provided the reasoning that connects your evidence to this conclusion.

"Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. "

This is silly. Guns don't get manufactured and then 32% of them get stolen from the manufacturers warehouse. They get bought and some get subsequently stolen. If there were less guns made and sold there would be less guns available for felons to acquire them privately, less places to steal them or buy stolen ones on the black market, less opportunity for renting or purchasing from a retailer. Thus - less felons with guns.

If times got tough, and I thought robbing a convenience store was a way out of a situation I was in - I would not be able to acquire a firearm without putting myself in considerable danger that outweighs the benefits to the degree that pretending to have a gun is a better strategy. I have 'black market contacts' so I might be able to work my way to someone with a gun, but I really don't want to get into business with someone that deals guns because they are near universally bad news.

" states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate."

Almost all States have such laws, making the comparison pretty meaningless.

"In fact, it's {number of mass shootings} declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. "

I think 'most dead in one incident' is a poor measure. I think total dead over a reasonable time period is probably better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres
The UK appears once. It is approx. 1/5 the population of the US. The US manages to have five incidents in the top 10.

Statistics can be fun, though, huh?

" In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens"

You've done a lot of hard work to show that most gun owners are law-abiding and non-violent. As such, the police won't go door to door, citizens will go to the police.

"How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns?"

The same way they remove contraband from other recalcitrants. I expect most of them will ask, demand, threaten and then use force - but as usual there will be examples where it won't be pretty.

"Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns?"

That's how it typically goes down here in the UK, yes.

"Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else?"

The military has had access to weapons the citizenry is not permitted to for some considerable time. Banning most handguns etc., would just be adding to the list.

"Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?"

No, but on the other hand, can the same unreliable, dishonest, immoral and unvirtuous government ensure that allowing general access to firearms will go exactly as planned?

You see, you talk the talk of sociological examination, but you seem to have neglected any form of critical reflection.

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary"

On the other hand, I've been mugged erm, 6 times? I've been violently assaulted without attempts to rob another half dozen or so. I don't tend to hang around in the sorts of places middle class WASPs would loiter, shall we say. I'm glad most of the people that cross my path are not armed, and have little to no idea how to get a gun.

You don't source this assertion as far as I saw - but you'll have to do better than 'it's interesting' in your analysis, I'm afraid.

No formatting, because too much typing already.

All below exercised, and the point is lost to so much sophistic treason. The cop get's a glimpse of ego-loss and goes about his merry cop way, and Billy here making a non-violent public statement of laws vs rights is fingered by a paranoid delusional (cop-caller), harassed-with-the-hope-of-a-fumble by a dutiful enforcer/instigator (cop), and the ONLY thing that kept him off the National Terrorist Database was his acumen and legal knowledge...in publicly showcasing his RIGHTS under the LAW, he barely escapes arrest.

The point being, that with increasing frequency, a routine police-encounter because of someone's 'suspicion' may quickly and more often than not, escalate into an innocent citizen being FUCKED into a state-system of the state-sanctioned organized criminal business of keeping people in a state of fear of arrest and incarceration, oh ye clueless dumb-asses who think the world works or should work in some universally, equitable fashion.

Bravo for this Mainer's low-swinging balls and fuck the vortex of the US police forces in retrograde-The entire justice machine is rotten with institutional corruption and overdue for a major douche, or the future of Americas' headed for boots, clubs, and riot shields.

The Economist had a couple of good articles about this. The US prison/detention system is amazingly screwed up.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21589903-if-you-are-poor-dont-get-caught-speeding-new-debtors-prisons
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21589868-shocking-number-non-violent-americans-will-die-prison-throwing-away-key

"I believe there are nuances and unknowns being ignored or unknown to ChaosEngine and yourself that is clouding both of your viewpoints here."

By the way, this opinion is again not an 'argument' much less a 'fact'.

"I must agree with you there. Compensated emancipation, if it could have been done successfully and non-violently (big if's), would be preferable in my eyes to 'war'"

And yet, this is one of Napolitano's arguments that Stewart decided to ridicule (thus inspiring my original comment). But as a 'comedian' he can get away with non-arguments and instead rely on "funny faces" and other contortions (unlike some other folks I can mention). Maybe some eye-rolling.

I must agree with you there. Compensated emancipation, if it could have been done successfully and non-violently (big if's), would be preferable in my eyes to 'war', even though I can understand the opposition to it based on today's morality.
I believe there are nuances and unknowns being ignored or unknown to ChaosEngine and yourself that is clouding both of your viewpoints here. There's no way to know if 'paying for freedom' (the way I like to look at the idea of compensated emancipation) could have worked or the unforeseen repercussions of it, since it wasn't given a chance.
I'm not going to comment on Jon Stewarts motives or morality, they are not germane to the subject I'm discussing.

I've noticed a predictable yet still disheartening trend in the comment threads of many videos covering the Ukraine uprising: anti-Occupy Wall Streeters pointing to the relative pacifist nature of the Occupy movement as proof of that movement's insincerity and ineffectiveness.

What the anti-Occupy folks need to understand is that the only thing separating America from the Ukraine is that a weak ember of faith that the system can still be reformed with non-violent tactics still smolders in the hearts of the have-nots and will-never-haves.

They should be celebrating and thanking their gods for the non-violent nature of Occupy yet they mock and draw erroneous conclusions that have the potential to produce a hell on earth that until today, only happens on their televisions in distant lands.

Wow. Interesting discussion going on here, and I say "interesting" because there's a lot of conflict between people who share the same vision of what society should be, but place blame for the reasons why it's not (in the context of this video) in completely different pieces from one another.
I've never posted to a thread this long before because I assume that it will get lost in the shuffle/argument/whatever, but I wanted to share how I broke the scene down and what I gathered from the video.
The fundamental problem here, which is subjective so I understand if someone doesn't agree, is that:
"most people" would not be comfortable walking down the street in this neighborhood.
"Most people" want safety, or more specifically; as much of a chance to not fear for their lives while existing.
What would remedy this? The hard rule of law? Or let it pan out as-is. The former has never stopped me from an action that society might not agree with. I don't run people over or shoot guns into the air because I believe in not hurting others, and both those actions either do, or have a decent chance to.
On the other hand, I really believe this is one step removed from a war-zone. Not to mistakenly define this scenario as a binary gradient between order or chaos, but if one group of friends became violently entangled with another group of friends, that's exactly what would result: armed, faction opposition.
Most people seem to argue over the solutions we know of, rather than the problems that exist, but it seems to me that none of those are working.
So I guess my question is: how would you make these neighborhoods "safe" for non-violent people to live in that isn't attributed to some form of government?

"as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise."

I have a different take, in my preferred anarchism. The only one I see as functional, all voluntary hierarchies and authorities are perfectly legitimate. I am free to submit or not to any authority I choose to for my benefit and that is my legitimate right. Also private property owners have a legitimate authority over their property. I can do whatever I want with my property (without violating anyone else's self-ownership and property rights). And under the same conditions, I can legitimately enter into any agreements I want with anyone I want. That would be legitimate private property anarchy.

As of now, the government makes what is naturally legitimate, into something arbitrarily illegitimate, based on the whims of legislators and bureaucrats.

"the burden is on those who profess authority."

I understand what you are saying. And don't think the burden is on anyone. Do not initiate violence on anyone's person of property. Simple. That's it. There's nothing else to prove or not. If anything it is the "burden" to prove you own what you own, in cases of ownership disputes. For that, there is legal precedent on who has the burden of ownership proof etc.

"because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice."

The only thing that can interfere and wreck a private property anarchy is aggression, i.e., the initiation of violence against anyone's person and/or property. To prevent that you have legal enforcement and arbitration services (courts). Just like now. Except that there wouldn't be a state monopoly over these. A private law society can work just as well or better than having a monopoly of law enforcement and courts. Monopolies are always inefficient and costly. Always. For any and all goods and services. No exceptions.

"these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people."

There is not such thing as "the people," in any practical sense. Show me "the people" and I'll show you an abstraction. There are only individuals. "The people" cannot run anything. Even you and I disagree. How are we "the people?" (Furthermore, to have a truly non-violent society, individuals would have the choice as to whether or not to engage in agreements with other individuals. Unlike now, where people are forced into agreements by which "majorities" -- whether actual or rigged -- impose their will upon the minorities. That's what you call "democracy.")

"BUT..you stop there. are you implying that we have a free market now?"

No, we don't have a free market now. We have pockets in which free markets function, however.

"did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?"

Yes, mostly it did.

"have you even been paying attention?"

What the fuck does that mean?

"corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!"

No, some corporations with the help of the US and/or foreign governments have been exploiting some people in third world countries, enriching those corporations and government officials in the US and mostly in third world countries. But this is what made these corporations and government officials wealthy, not what made America as a whole a wealthy nation. America is no longer a wealthy nation as a whole (particular companies are not "America"), but an indebted nation, because of things like these, which go hand in hand with military expenditures too. The average person profits nothing from these corporations and politicians exploiting third world (or any) countries. So no, this does not make America wealthy.

The free market, however (which this exploitation is not), did make America a wealthy nation with rapid economic improvement for the average person (with the regrettable exceptions of African and Native Americans).

"and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!"

If you are arguing that the government has been responsible for all this evil, then you are preaching to the choir. Although I take issue with the idea that it is "our government." I don't own it, nor would I want to.

"its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it."

I don't think you have been paying attention, @enoch. No, I don't think we have a free market and you cannot have a free market if there is a government interfering with it. So I don't know what your, "you can fucking keep it," bullshit is about.

"you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?"

Corporate American is a corporatist system, kind of fascist if you want to get technical. It is a mix of private business with government-granted privilege. That is not a free market. Let me say it again, in case you missed it, a truly free market cannot exist while a government monopoly grants privilege to some businesses. That is crony-corporatism, fascism. A free market can only exist as market anarchy. Corporations exploit because of government privilege, be it granted by the US government/state or third world governments/states.

"who or what will keep that behemoth in check?"

Private law based on the rights to contracts and the right of freedom from aggression to person and/or property, enforced by a private legal enforcement system.

The state has not and will not "keep that behemoth in check" as you call it. In fact, the state is the "behemoth." It is absurd to expect the state to police itself. It has not and it will not. That plan is a failure. But "good luck with that."

(btw, I you want to know the real reasons third world countries are third world, particularly Latin America, I suggest you read Alvaro Vargas Llosa's well researched book, "Liberty For Latin America," and see how 500 of state intervention/abuse has led to the current situation. If you want to lecture me about why Latin America is "third world," you'd better do some more research first and really know your stuff. I am quite familiar with the situation there.)

"what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?"

When you take government-granted privilege off the table, things get better and corporations and (more importantly) governments cannot abuse individuals, as some corporations and virtually all governments now do. And you replace those privileges (euphemistically called "regulations") with laws based on non-aggression and enforcement of rights to self-ownership and property.

All "exploitation" comes from aggression. All of it.

Aggression means initiating violence. Without government support, no one can initiate violence without becoming a criminal. And criminals shall be dealt with accordingly. But as long as governments/states grant aggression privileges, then you have legalized crime.

"do you understand what feudalism actually is?"

Perhaps you'd like to restate this in a non-condescending way. If you have something to say about feudalism, then say it. Explain whatever you want to explain...

"we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state."

I don't care to have a state, so you can take this complaint to the statists. (Good luck with that.)

"you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america"

"Corporate America" could do little harm if any, if it weren't for some corporations' use of government. Government serves no purpose other than to allow those who control it take from those who don't. The only solution to this is to not have that tool/weapon available to whomever takes control of it. Corporations don't own it. They just use it as much as possible (just like unions do, just like all sorts of special interest groups do, just like voting blocks do, and mostly just like politicians and bureaucrats do, and even citizens who "game" the system in one way or another).

"then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist."

That likely makes you a "pretty crappy anarchist" too.
No offense intended.
Libertarian socialist kind of contradicts itself, does it not?
Take what you want from this message or not.
Good luck.

I've been watching a lot about the knockout game as of late. It really does seem to be a hate crime (It's also called Polar Bearing, because it's victims tend to be white). It's caused quite a stir in the black community, as those who know better seem to be cringing and distancing themselves from the attacks as well as possible.

Ultimately, it's the fault of a few individuals who feel powerless enough in their own lives to try to take it out on others. I see a connection between this feeling of powerlessness and the "stop and frisk" laws passed in many of the cities where the knockout game first became popular.

I think the solution to this kind of violence is improving police relations with the affected communities. The first step is getting rid of "stop and frisk", the second removal of police arrest quotas, the third would be reducing the black prison population's non-violent offenders.

The ass wipe boy is definitely in the wrong. However with every bomb and killing by the Muslims only continues to tarnish their non violent religion.