1. Most, if not all, racist groups base their ideology on Christian beliefs.

2. I know that Roof gathered some of his beliefs from the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacy group, that wants to get America back to Christian values or something to that effect.

 

I don't particularly like Christianity but I'm smart enough to realize people like Dylann Roof are nut jobs who don't represent the religion as a whole. A lot of Christians struggle to make that distinction with terrorists who practice Islam...

 

Agreed that's kinda what I've been saying the whole time. Agreed none the less, well minus the fact that I do like Christianity and respect all religions.

CNN Sources: San Bernardino Shooter Was Radicalized and Communicated With More Than One International Terror Suspect | TheBlaze.com

1. Most, if not all, racist groups base their ideology on Christian beliefs.

2. I know that Roof gathered some of his beliefs from the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacy group, that wants to get America back to Christian values or something to that effect.

 

I don't particularly like Christianity but I'm smart enough to realize people like Dylann Roof are nut jobs who don't represent the religion as a whole. A lot of Christians struggle to make that distinction with terrorists who practice Islam...

 

Is it only Christians, in your opinion, that struggle with the distinction...or is it mostly Christians, and what are you basing that on?

 

And because some people can't make the distinction doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend something isn't a radical Islamic terrorist attack if it in fact is.

^ one issue is we collect so much information each day, most of which is nowhere near important that important information gets lost.

I don't particularly like Christianity but I'm smart enough to realize people like Dylann Roof are nut jobs who don't represent the religion as a whole. A lot of Christians struggle to make that distinction with terrorists who practice Islam...

 

Best statement I've seen in this thread. I agree 100% and as a Christian that hurts.

 

 

I have made my feelings toward Christianity and organized religion known in other threads and as a follower of Christ it hurts to see Christianity and religion as a whole fall so far and be so hypocritical. However, you hit the nail on the head when it comes to not recognizing an obvious distinction between individuals who perform horrendous acts and the religion they are associated with.

 

Personally I feel there has been an agenda at play for many years to have Americans vs. Middle Eastern cultures or basically Christians vs. Muslims. Same can be said now for whites vs. blacks, or any race/religion against any other race religion. Instead of everybody coming together as one, we are tearing each other apart by unjustified prejudice against one another. Unfortunately I feel this is somewhat agenda driven and the perpetuation of the thought pattern that all those who practice Islam are terrorists is something that is causing even more problems.

 

Islam is a peaceful religion at its core, it is also eerily similar to Christianity. Unfortunately a major portion of our society cannot recognize this and we are stuck in a Christian vs. Islamic debate instead of coming together and finding a solution to deal with radical terrorist groups (despite religious affiliation).

Well with your qualifier in there, of course there isn't going to be any. Decision makers are elected, and they know that advocating for the banning of guns in their entirety would be political suicide. But, decision makers aren't the only ones who influence the public. Fareed Zakaria is one of those who advocates a gun ban.

 

Aside from decision makers and other who have influence, which make up a relatively small portion of the american populous, there are still those out there who believe in banning guns. If you want to remove your qualifier, as of October of this year roughly 27% of those participating in the Gallup pole (attached below) believed handguns should be banned. While that number is a little lower than I expected, it is still a sizable amount and meets my previous statement that their are "plenty" that want guns to be banned.

 

Guns | Gallup Historical Trends

 

Also, were you ever able to come up with a response to the question I asked you 20 pages ago? Isn't there an undeniable trend that these mass shootings occur in gun free zones?

 

I think there's more to it than someone just picking out a "gun free zone" because it's an easy target. The first problem with that argument is that most of these shooters have been diagnosed with some mental illness, but yet we are expected to believe that they can easily make such a sane and rational decision (sane is a relative term...obviously a mass shooting is not a sane decision) such as choosing a gun free zone. I think that it's more coincidence than choice.....almost universally, the shooter had some sort of connection to the target location, which just happens to be a gun free zone. I'm not saying that's true in all cases. But I think it's more complicated than someone just picking a gun free zone because it's an "easier" target.

Is it only Christians, in your opinion, that struggle with the distinction...or is it mostly Christians, and what are you basing that on?

 

And because some people can't make the distinction doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend something isn't a radical Islamic terrorist attack if it in fact is.

Seems to be mostly Christians. Everyone I see struggling with it is Christian. Which makes sense because the overwhelming majority of people I know are Christian.

 

It very well may be an attack committed by someone following a radicalized view of Islam. My head isn't in the sand to that. But let's not sit here with our heads in the sand and pretend like a lot of people have trouble distinguishing the line between the two.

 

On these very forums you can easily find Christians espousing that Islam is a religion of violence. That these terrorist attacks are advocated by Islam. I could go on.

 

You'll have a hard time finding those same people saying Christianity is a racist religion. That it's a violent religion. Yet, most white supremacist groups base their ideologies on Christianity.

 

Why is there a difference there?

Unfortunately I feel this is somewhat agenda driven and the perpetuation of the thought pattern that all those who practice Islam are terrorists is something that is causing even more problems.

 

 

Also, what I mean by agenda driven is it seems since 9-11 or even the Gulf War there has been a media fueled perpetuation of Islamic terrorism leading to the thought pattern that Islam = terrorism. Unfortunately this is not the case, and sadly Americans look to the atrocities of 9/11 and cry "death to Islam" or bomb the middle east, or what ever uneducated non sense they are led to believe and this accomplishes nothing. Instead it has only made the problem worst, and even worst than that is it allowed Americans to get behind conflicts and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan that probably shouldn't have been conflicts in the first place. The way we went about justifying these conflicts and these decade long occupations is sickening and more less false advertising that really has a lot of Americans fooled.

Why no pictures of the wife?????

CNN Sources: San Bernardino Shooter Was Radicalized and Communicated With More Than One International Terror Suspect | TheBlaze.com

 

From this article:

 

San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan echoed that sentiment, while adding that whatever led the two to launch Wednesday's assault, they could have killed more had they survived. He pointed to the discovery of hundreds of rounds of ammunition in their rented black SUV as well as in their apartment.

 

Authorities also found 12 pipe bombs there, as well as hundreds of tools that "could be used to construct IEDs or pipe bombs," the chief said.

^ one issue is we collect so much information each day, most of which is nowhere near important that important information gets lost.

 

True to an extent. We usually don't publicize or celebrate foiled terror threats. I could see a lot of reasons as to why we don't though.

True to an extent. We usually don't publicize or celebrate foiled terror threats. I could see a lot of reasons as to why we don't though.

 

Yup. Kinda like not letting everybody know the status of yesterday's pursuit. Some stuff you keep close to the vest.

I think there's more to it than someone just picking out a "gun free zone" because it's an easy target. The first problem with that argument is that most of these shooters have been diagnosed with some mental illness, but yet we are expected to believe that they can easily make such a sane and rational decision (sane is a relative term...obviously a mass shooting is not a sane decision) such as choosing a gun free zone. I think that it's more coincidence than choice.....almost universally, the shooter had some sort of connection to the target location, which just happens to be a gun free zone. I'm not saying that's true in all cases. But I think it's more complicated than someone just picking a gun free zone because it's an "easier" target.

 

I think we are going to just end up disagreeing on this. In my opinion, it is pretty clear that gun free zones are targets. But for the sake of discussion, I would like point out a few specific contentions I have.

 

You say that most shooters are diagnosed with mental illnesses. I agree with that, but are they diagnosed before or after the fact. It is very easy to say that someone who went and shot 20 kids in an elementary school has a mental illness, but prior to that did anyone think he was mentally ill? What about the two recently? My point is that it isn't known that they are mentally ill until after the fact. Up until the point they commit these atrocities, they usually blend into society relatively well. There is no indication that they are unable to realize that gun free zones are targets.

 

Additionally, I do not agree that because they are mentally ill (psychos) they are unable to realize that gun free zones are targets. Some of these people plan these attacks out and in great detail. Was Charles Manson mentally ill? of course, but he clearly knew how to carry out his plan in the most efficient manner possible. Their decision making process is skewed, no doubt about it, but they have demonstrated the ability to plan their attacks out to inflict as much damage as possible.

 

As I started off with, I think this may be an issue that we just have to agree to disagree on. But I do not think that by determining these psychos as mentally ill, they are incapable of realizing that their best chance of inflicting maximum damage is to do it in a place they know they wont face any resistance.

I think there's more to it than someone just picking out a "gun free zone" because it's an easy target. The first problem with that argument is that most of these shooters have been diagnosed with some mental illness, but yet we are expected to believe that they can easily make such a sane and rational decision (sane is a relative term...obviously a mass shooting is not a sane decision) such as choosing a gun free zone. I think that it's more coincidence than choice.....almost universally, the shooter had some sort of connection to the target location, which just happens to be a gun free zone. I'm not saying that's true in all cases. But I think it's more complicated than someone just picking a gun free zone because it's an "easier" target.

 

Perhaps, there is also a way to break the connection between people being targets at gun free zones and those "allegedly" targeting gun free zones though.

He seemed more like a nut to me. He's crazy, and doesn't deserve to see the light of day ever again. I'm all for the death penalty in his case.

 

Doesn't have anything to do with this case.

 

Agreed.