Why attack Sikhs?

Another right wing gun "nut" opened fire on cops and bystanders near the Texas A&M University campus today, killing two and wounding four before being shot to death by police.

His Facebook page page identifies several snipers as inspirational people and others including Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. He identified himself as a divorced "Christian" and a Michelle Bachmann for president supporter.

 

At least he didnt say "Guns dont kill people, liberal gun control does"

And back in the Chicago area today, following Chicago area congressman Joe Walsh's remarks last week on the "real threat of radical Muslims...trying to kill Americans every week":

More coincidence?

 

Well, make the cogent argument as to why gun control should be stricter--and I'm talking about a cogent argument, not one loaded with pejorative terms and emotions.

I think the argument would be something like, "Easy access to guns means there are too many guns in circulation in the U.S.A. When there are more guns out there, more crimes will occur. Therefore, restricting the amount of guns will lower crimes over all."

Or, "Guns are such a concentration of power, that no normal person should be allowed to wield that power."

I don't know. Enlighten me. I'm curious as to what people think.

I do take issue with the people who ascribe political impetus to crimes in general. I would imagine a large majority of convictions go towards populations that would vote Democrat, if they still had their voting rights...

 

I'm looking beyond the issue of gun control in which any discussion is fruitless....to the issue of the accountability of Republican leaders who pander to the groups and talking heads that promote the rising anti-Islam hate or, among their own in Congress, conduct witch-hunt for Muslim Brotherhood infiltrations in the federal government.

Or perhaps you believe the increase of hate crimes against Muslims is purely coincidental.

 

Has there been an increase? I do agree that the "They're different, therefore evil" rhetoric is absurd. The thing I worry about is one or two high profile events leading people to draw the wrong conclusions.

As far as the Obama is not a US Citizen thing...yea. I'd imagine if he was white with the same set of circumstances, we would hear none of this.

 

Hate crimes against Muslims (vandalism, arson, murder) have been on the rise since 9/11. The FBI data is available and DHS report (and others) on the rise in right wing extremists (hate) groups during same period (and even more so after the election of Obama) is pretty conclusive as well.

Remarks like those by Walsh (and Bachmann, Palin, etc) fuel the fire rather than call for tolerance. Or the $millions in funding by right wing groups to promote fear and intolerance of Muslims.

 

I've been the subject of three knife attacks in my time - if there were more guns about I'd be dead by now. Simples.

I was thinking of asking why so many Americans would want to carry guns, but I would too in America, and a bullet proof vest - if a gun's for self defence then wearing purpose made self defence armour should be mandatory - carry both or neither.

 

Don't you live in the UK? There's an underlying assumption that somehow if you were in the US, it would have been guns, instead of knives, which, absent any further information, is just a claim in a vacuum.

FYI, the UK Violent Crime Rate is something in the magnitude of 9.5x higher than the US. Surprisingly, we also own a lot more guns.

See e.g.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary
FBI — Violent Crime

But fuck that shit. If guns were less restricted, people would have used guns, man.

The point I'm trying to draw here is, gun control, in and of itself, doesn't seem like an effective prophylactic.

Also, keep in mind--Body Armor is uncomfortably hot. So unless your job required you to kick in doors and approach strange people, the trade off isn't worth it.
--- merged: Aug 14, 2012 at 1:40 AM ---
Oh, and I just remembered: Knives are pretty heavily regulated in the UK, aren't they?

Knife legislation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(This is just one of approximately six laws cited in the wiki article, which seeks to regulate and curb knife use).

Given your anecdote, doesn't seem to effective.

 

Here's another interesting fact for you.

Since 2010, more than 30 bills have been introduced in 20 Republican-controlled states to ban Sharia law from being used in US courts based on ignorance or fear that Muslims want to establish Sharia law as law of the land in the US....despite the fact that that there is no evidence that Sharia law has ever been used in US Courts.

From a 2011 survey.... about 1-in-5 (23%) Americans believe that American Muslims want to establish Shari’a law as law of the land in the United States.

• Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to believe that Muslims want to establish Shari’a law as law of the land (31% to 15%).
• Those who most trust Fox News are twice as likely as those who most trust Broadcast news and about four times as likely those who most trust public television to believe this (35%, 18% and 9%)
• More than one-third (34%) of white evangelicals believe Muslims are trying to impose Shari’a law, compared to only 20% of white mainline Protestants and 22% of white Catholics.

The survey findings also show a significant correlation between trust in Fox News and negative attitudes about Muslims. Americans who most trust Fox News are more likely to believe that Muslims want to establish Shari’a law, have not done enough to oppose extremism, and believe investigating Muslim extremism is a good idea.

Is it a stretch to believer there a connection, even indirectly, betweeen this fear and ignorance of Muslims/Islam among conservatives, to the increase in attacks against Muslims by conservative extremists?

Or that not one Republican leader/legislator (perhaps with the exception of McCain in a few instances) has called for a toning down of the rhetoric of hate and fear?

 

In his new role as executive VP of the Family Research Council (FRC), Boykin has effectively integrated anti-Muslim fear and ignorance into the agenda of the country's most prominent “family values” organization to the extent that both Muslims and gays (who are pedophiles by their very gayness and gay marriage, a threat to our children) are the enemies of the Christian right and thus the nation.

And not a single Republican who wants to get elected at any level will challenge groups like the FRC on their ignorance and intolerance. To do so would be a death wish for a political future within today's Republican party.

 

Maybe because they don't really think it's ignorant.
I watched a documentary from the early '90s yesterday, Blood in the Face, which is a very matter-of-fact profile (no narration, just straight footage) of ultra-right groups such as the Klan and ANP as they existed at that time. Of course, the rhetoric is often very inflammatory (but sometimes not) and it's very chilling to realize how much of it has trickled down into the contemporary 'legitimate' republican dialogue today.

 

i think the main argument for increased gun control is basically that the levels of gun related violence in the states are unacceptable. they are too easy to get. the more problematic correlate of that is that there are too many already in circulation, but i don't know what could be done about that. personally, i would prefer to see that number reduced, following on the same argument.

that argument could be made at any point. i can get numbers on the levels of gun-related violence in the states and comparatively if you like.

i also think the u.s. of a. should get with the small arms transfer treaty and stop fucking around with the restrictions on ammunition traffic. any appeal to international numbers that factors out the role of the united states in international arms transfers is problematic at best.

as for the massacre in wisconsin...again i think the way that the right of the republican outfit, and its populist media machinery, legitimate racism on a routine basis is as much a condition of possibility of this particular massacre as is the ease of availability of guns. so i wouldn't make the same argument about the texas a&m shootings, which seem to have some relation to the easy availability of guns, but it doesn't seem to me that same sort of scenario. a rightwing whackjob comes under intense personal pressure and decides to commit suicide and make a party of it....not sure i'd make the same arguments at all.

but that says nothing about the arguments themselves.

 

roachboy

Well, I think that begs the question of what is 'acceptable.' For example, although this argument is heavily tilted in the unacceptable nature of pundits and pols for inciting fear against Muslims, would we say that this is 'acceptable' given the nature of the first amendment? If this is not acceptable then, what makes the 'thank god for dead soldiers' fiasco acceptable?

redux
No, it's not a stretch at all, but as stated in my response to Roachboy, I really think the issues raised here are counter-balanced by the necessary costs of our freedoms.

My curiosity was also based on the thought that, I'm sure 9/11 was followed by a spike in anti-muslim race crimes, and, given that you think it's caused instead by anti-muslim pundits, I wanted to make sure 9/11 was not a 'third factor cause' if you will.

Regardless, you are right. I really do wish McCain would could have gotten further. You really have to respect a man who stops a rally to clarify that his opponent is 'Not a Muslim' and a 'Good man.'

 

it doesn't beg the question, really. the objectives of a policy should be the topics of debate. in a democratic polity they would be. but to concede that as a legitimate political question would already be a significant defeat for people who resist all forms of gun regulation.

 

I agree that 9/11 was certainly a factor, particularly in the immediate aftermath.

But we're 11 years removed and, most recently we have members of Congress conducting witch hunts for Muslims in the federal government and Islamaphobes running "family values" organizations.

I dont dispute the constitutionally-protected rights of individuals (on their own behalf or as organizational spokespersons) to engage in speech promoting intolerance. My argument is with the silence that follows among Republican officials so closely tied to, and dependent on, the support of these organizations.

And the fact remains, McCain is nearly alone (and not always consistent) in condemning the more religiously bigoted elements of his own party. The Republican party has, in effect, embraced the bigotry and intolerance of groups like the FRC (and many others such groups).

BTW, two more acts of vandalism in the last week.
Oklahoma mosque hit with paint balls - UPI.com

Muslims in North Smithfield ask for protection after sign vandalized | Breaking News | providencejournal.com | The Providence Journal

 

KirStang:

As a result of the 201 elections, Republicans took control of 28 state legislatures and since that time, 2o of those states have introduced legislation to ban Sharia law from being used in US courts, despite the fact that that there is no evidence that Sharia law has ever been used in US courts.

Do you think it is a real (but irrational) fear of a Sharia threat to the US judicial system, personal religious intolerance of legislators, pandering to an ignorant or intolerant base or what? ​

--- merged: Aug 15, 2012 at 12:23 AM ---
Maybe it is just very effective propaganda resulting from the $40+ million funding from seven conservative foundations to groups like Jihad Watch and the Society of Americans for National Existence to promote an anti-Muslim message...in addition to the endless diatribes by more "mainstream" conservative Christian groups like FRC.