• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Another shooting fueled by an extreme right wing white supremacist

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Post #140 ...

"Jesus, you come with no argument.....You're ridiculous learn to debate man."

Haven't you ever heard the term "figure of speech?"

For example if someone says "For God's sake man!"

It's a figure of speech to express discontent and annoyance

Here let me help you out since you're left behind on phrases:

"Some people use expressions such as for God's sake, for heaven's sake, for goodness' sake, or for Pete's sake in order to express annoyance or impatience, or to add force to a question or request. The expressions 'for God's sake' and 'for Christ's sake' could cause offense."

For God's sake for goodness sake for heaven's sake definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

So if I mention Jesus, it's a figure of speech in reference to the subject matter that I find annoying.....You can apologize now.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Haven't you ever heard the term "figure of speech?"

For example if someone says "For God's sake man!"

It's a figure of speech to express discontent and annoyance

Here let me help you out since you're left behind on phrases:

"Some people use expressions such as for God's sake, for heaven's sake, for goodness' sake, or for Pete's sake in order to express annoyance or impatience, or to add force to a question or request. The expressions 'for God's sake' and 'for Christ's sake' could cause offense."

For God's sake for goodness sake for heaven's sake definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

So if I mention Jesus, it's a figure of speech in reference to the subject matter that I find annoying.....You can apologize now.
Yeah, I've heard of figures of speech. Why don't you say Allah as a figure of speech instead of Jesus when you are annoyed?
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Yeah, I've heard of figures of speech. Why don't you say Allah as a figure of speech instead of Jesus when you are annoyed?

A) Arabic is not my first language, English is and because I naturally speak English this phrase is commonly used by Americans.

B) It's a phrase that I've used before outside the internet.

C) It's not intended to disrespect

D) I can't believe I had to explain something simple.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
A) Arabic is not my first language, English is and because I naturally speak English this phrase is commonly used by Americans.

B) It's a phrase that I've used before outside the internet.

C) It's not intended to disrespect

D) I can't believe I had to explain something simple.
It just seems odd to me that people so casually use the name of Jesus when annoyed or irritated in a disrespectful way...because it is a common cultural practice or "figure of speech" as you say, but no one uses the name of Allah or Buddha. or Krishna in such a way.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
It just seems odd to me that people so casually use the name of Jesus when annoyed or irritated in a disrespectful way...because it is a common cultural practice or "figure of speech" as you say, but no one uses the name of Allah or Buddha. or Krishna in such a way.

You have no issue with the phrase "For God's sake" yet you have an issue when someone casually mentions Jeebus?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
You have no issue with the phrase "For God's sake" yet you have an issue when someone casually mentions Jeebus?
I do have an issue with..."for God's sake" also. I don't think it is an appropriate use of the word God, unless used with reverence in prayer.
 
I think we should be cautious about infringing on the privacy of citizens. That said, stricter gun registration laws make sense to me, given that gun ownership is completely voluntary.


We already have laws against specific and real threats or incitement to violence. In a perfect world, your suggestion would be good. Given current events, the results of "monitoring" social media posts (as is being done now by Google and Twitter and Youtube) is fraught with problems. Who decides what language is "extreme" or worthy of an investigation?


I would like to think that if anyone sees something as disconcerting as this guy posted and others like him... someone who knows him (and presumably he was posting it for the benefit of someone)would see the post and be able to put it in the proper context and contact authorities if necessary. Apparently, one of his friends DID see his posts and given his understanding of the shooter, Santino William Legan, he saw no reason to report the guy.


We could (and others will) go on and on about what could have been done to stop this guy. To the extent that his affiliation to a potentially violent organization (whatever the "white supremacist" group he was associated with) could make it easier to profile and narrow down people with the potential to do stuff like this is great.


The bottom line is that we live in a free society. There is likely no way to stop a determined character from killing several random people if he wanted to. Until people accept this reality, the useless arguments about doing more than we do now with regard to the process one goes through to buy a gun... and the emphasis on creating more "helpless victim" (Gun-Free) zones... these sorts of "solutions" will be regularly discussed and implemented and in the case of Gun-Free Zones, will lead to more victims.


Think about it. If you were out somewhere, in a mall or at a bar (Gun-Free Zones) or even as a child in school and you are told someone in the building has a gun. Would you think… “It’s probably a teacher who wants to be able to offer a defense for his students”… Or would you think it’s more likely that it is someone up to no good?


UNTIL IT IS AS JUST AS LIKELY THAT THE ONE WITH A GUN IS A “GOOD GUY” (an armed teacher, or patron of a festival or wherever these guys look at as “soft targets”… (Someone who has completed all of the background checks and other hoops, and he hasn’t been declared insane or convicted of domestic violence and has completed the process required to buy a gun legally…) WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE KILLERS GOING INTO THESE PLACES TO HUNT FOR VICTIMS.


People are killed regularly outside bars and in bad areas of cities, and it isn’t considered a big deal. That, to some extent, is because we know (subconsciously or otherwise) that the victim had some possibility of defending himself. If only the knowledge that it could be dangerous where he intends to go on this tragic night and that should he face a situation… he would benefit from bringing his gun.


When someone goes into a school, government building, private corporation or any other “Gun Free Zone” and kills people… it’s a bigger deal. I would posit that it is a bigger deal because we all know the victims had no chance.


Solving that problem, by allowing qualified people in these formerly “Gun-Free Zones the ability to defend themselves would be a heck of a lot easier than attempting to solve the problem with virtually any gun restrictions… including outlawing of them altogether.


They will likely still have the ability to randomly shoot someone in the free society in which we live. But, at least they would not focus entirely on those who are now the most vulnerable. These people who do this tend to be like the (usually) men who are in a domestic violence case and stalking their wives, intent on shooting them. In which cases, the police will tell these women that to a large extent it is up to them to defend themselves.
 
Last edited:
60 million people voted for Trump, some of them your friends, neighbors, and family.


It must be nice to sit at home on your computer with no one there to "fact-check" the complete BS you spew. No one should be surprised. Liberals have completely given up on the necessity to provide evidence of the sort of "conclusions" you have drawn here. There were greater cheers for his success in the areas (demographic) of black unemployment numbers at his last "Ralley" than for virtually anything else he said.

The "racism" thing is a cheap and safe (baseless when confronted with the facts) argument to make. It's a little like the "Settled Science" position liberals take with anyone (including scientists) who questions whether these (normal over the course of history) "climate changes" are due to man... or nature.

Donald Trump is no "racist".

Neither are the vast majority who voted for him. Under your logic... Hillary would have been a muslium terrorist supporter... given that a huge percentage of muslims (many of whom believe that Sharia Law should replace our Constitution) voted for her. I would bet she got more votes from these America haters than Trump did from the group of "right-wing" loons you seem to try so badly to lump Trump into.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
It must be nice to sit at home on your computer with no one there to "fact-check" the complete BS you spew. No one should be surprised. Liberals have completely given up on the necessity to provide evidence of the sort of "conclusions" you have drawn here. There were greater cheers for his success in the areas (demographic) of black unemployment numbers at his last "Ralley" than for virtually anything else he said.

The "racism" thing is a cheap and safe (baseless when confronted with the facts) argument to make. It's a little like the "Settled Science" position liberals take with anyone (including scientists) who questions whether these (normal over the course of history) "climate changes" are due to man... or nature.

Donald Trump is no "racist".

Neither are the vast majority who voted for him. Under your logic... Hillary would have been a muslium terrorist supporter... given that a huge percentage of muslims (many of whom believe that Sharia Law should replace our Constitution) voted for her. I would bet she got more votes from these America haters than Trump did from the group of "right-wing" loons you seem to try so badly to lump Trump into.

Dude, I was defending people who voted for Trump, so go **** yourself.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I wonder how many people in this thread realize that a "****** lover" was someone who was both white and a valid target for people like the Klan?
And what's the point and purpose of bickering over details of the gun used? Does it make people that uncomfortable that they have to divert and distract from everything about this shooting to reduce the realization it's part of a larger trend in the increase in radical Right-wing violence since Trump took office?
White supremacist violence responsible for spike in US domestic terror arrests, FBI says
But did people take heed of the warnings this was a very possible outcome before the election? Nope. Did people see the red flags going up as people Hitler saluted Trump over his EC win? Nope. Are they still reluctant to accept reality? Yup.

Umm Hitler is dead. You are babbling "muh Hitler" empty rhetoric.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
They sure seem to in every other developed nation on the planet.

Your belief doesn't line up with reality.

Shootings and grenade attacks are going through the roof in Sweden over the past few years, despite their severe gun restrictions not becoming more lax in that time.
https://www.politico.eu/article/swe...ty-undoing-peaceful-self-image-law-and-order/

List of grenade attacks in Sweden - Wikipedia

Where the hell are all these grenades even coming from? I don't think there's even a legal avenue for grenade ownership in Sweden, or the surrounding European countries. We have a legal avenue for grenade ownership in the US but their use in crime is basically nonexistent.

What's worse about this all for the people of Sweden is that their government denies them the right to own and use even non-lethal tools of self defense like mace or tazers, to say nothing of handguns.
So they are left to be victimized by all these foreign criminals who don't abide by the laws and turn entire areas into police no-go zones by their willingness to commit violence against any police officer who steps foot in "their territory".

Sweden's current unraveling has conclusively disproven the idea that their previously peaceful state of being was due to restrictions on an individual's access to dangerous tools. Crime is a social/cultural/spiritual problem, not a technological problem. Lack of legal access to these technologies in Sweden hasn't stopped these foreign criminals, so desperate to commit their crime, from ignoring those laws to acquire weapons by illegal means.

In contrast, Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates of western countries, yet until just recently every household was required by law to own a military rifle, kept in their home with a stockpile of ammo. That reason, going back generations, was to deter other larger nations from trying to conquer them by making the prospect of advancing through and occupying the nation more trouble than it was worth. Every man in the nation equipped with a military rifle hiding behind every tree. They also had local caches of anti-tank rockets and heavy weapons for communities to access against an invasion.

Switzerland conclusively disproved the idea that easy access to guns, or high rates of gun ownership, inherently result in more crime.

Crime is a social/cultural/spiritual issue, not a technological issue.
 
Last edited:

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Your belief doesn't line up with reality.

Shootings and grenade attacks are going through the roof in Sweden over the past few years, despite their severe gun restrictions not becoming more lax in that time.
https://www.politico.eu/article/swe...ty-undoing-peaceful-self-image-law-and-order/

List of grenade attacks in Sweden - Wikipedia

Where the hell are all these grenades even coming from? I don't believe there's even a legal avenue for grenade ownership in Sweden, or the surrounding European countries. We have a legal avenue for grenade ownership in the US but their use in crime is basically nonexistent.

What's worse about this all for the people of Sweden is that their government denies them the right to own and use tools of self defense like mace or tazers, to say nothing of handguns.
So they are left to be victimized by all these foreign criminals who don't abide by the laws.
Are there more shootings and attacks in Sweden per capita than in the US? Hmm? It's OK, I'll wait for you to look for more bias confirming cherries to pick.
In contrast, Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates of western countries, yet until recently every household was required to own an assault rifle (a genuine one, with automatic fire) and a stockpile of ammo as part of the nation's military defense strategy. That strategy being that they will deter others from trying to conquer them if every household has men who equipped with military rifles that know how to use them. They also had local caches of anti-tank rockets and heavy weapons for communities to access against an invasion.
By all means, adopt all the restrictions on firearms the Swiss have. Firearms regulation in Switzerland - Wikipedia
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Are there more shootings and attacks in Sweden per capita than in the US?

You're committing the logical fallacy of a red herring by trying to ignore the point I made in order to divert onto an different issue.

The point I made was this: Sweden's rising gun/grenade rates conclusively prove that their firearm laws were not the reason they were a peaceful country in previous decades.

Whether or not they have reached the per capita level of the US would be irrelevant to disproving the point I made.

And if you can't disprove that point then the entire premise of your argument falls apart (your premise being that gun ban laws are what made Sweden a peaceful country originally). Because their laws haven't gotten more lax but crime is now skyrocketing, and they've managed to one up any other nation by having a large amount of grenades being used in crime for some inexplicable reason.

It should be shocking to any gun ban law advocates just how ineffective the Swedish laws actually are right now at preventing this rapid spike in gun/grenade crime in a matter of a few years. They can't make grenades anymore illegal than they already are! So why does their use in crime continue to rise?

By all means, adopt all the restrictions on firearms the Swiss have. Firearms regulation in Switzerland - Wikipedia

There are three errors with your attempted point, either of which by itself disproves your claim:

1. As I pointed out, your premise is already disproven. You have no basis to claim Switzerland's low crime is the result of gun control laws when it's already been conclusively demonstrated by Sweden that their peace was never caused by gun control laws in the first place.

2. You are ignoring the fact that most of those laws were introduced in 2008, yet in the many decades prior to 2008 Switzerland still was a low crime peaceful country and after 2008 there's been no significant improvement in that state of being.

3. Individual gun ownership rates are still extremely high regardless of whatever laws may be currently in place, with 1 gun in the country for every 4 people. Back in 2007 they had the third highest rate of gun ownership out of all countries across the world. Yet they were then, and continue to be, peaceful.

Which all disproves the claim that guns themselves somehow create crime, as though this inanimate object had the power to change a person's heart and mind to become a criminal when they previously had no inclination or desire to do so.

If you truly cared about creating a more just and safer society, you'd be looking pragmatically at what is truly the cause behind crime and peace in a society - because you are currently trying to blame and credit the wrong things here, and anything you proposed out of that illogical analysis would be either ineffective or only cause more harm by disarming the peaceful citizens and leaving the criminals armed to victimize others freely.
 
Last edited:

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
You're committing the logical fallacy of a red herring by trying to ignore the point I made in order to divert onto an different issue.
You want to talk logical fallacies? How about I stop you at confirmation bias and cherry picking, Sweden isn't "the rest of the developed world", even if it's gun violence was worse than the US, which it isn't, of course.
2. You are ignoring the fact that most of those laws were introduced in 2008, yet in the many decades prior to 2008 Switzerland still was a low crime peaceful country and after 2008 there's been no significant improvement in that state of being.
I'm ignoring nothing. The Swiss have always had strong firearm regulation. Yes, every household has a rifle, but every household also is part of an organised, government run militia. If you want to implement that requirement for gun ownership in the US, have at it. Of course you'll ignore that extremely pertinent point because the FACT that Swiss gun ownership requires military service and regulation is inconvenient to American gun fetishists who love to quote mine Swiss firearm stats. Quote mining, that's another logical fallacy you've used.
3. Individual gun ownership rates are still extremely high regardless of whatever laws may be currently in place, with 1 gun in the country for every 4 people. Back in 2007 they had the third highest rate of gun ownership out of all countries across the world. Yet they were then, and continue to be, peaceful.
There is more to Swiss gun policy than gun ownership. Ignoring the parts of their very strict gun laws that don't fit your agenda is yet more cherry picking and confirmation bias. If you want to use the Swiss as an example of safe gun ownership, you must use the entire Swiss example, not just the bits that suit your purposes


illykw0tcwr21.jpg

If you truly cared about creating a more just and safer society, you'd be looking pragmatically at what is truly the cause behind crime and peace in a society - because you are currently trying to blame and credit the wrong things here, and anything you proposed out of that illogical analysis would be either ineffective or only cause more harm by disarming the peaceful citizens and leaving the criminals armed to victimize others freely.
Cool strawman. I never mentioned disarming anyone. But if you're intent on having an argument based on things I never said, I'll leave you to it.
 
Last edited:
Top