Gun Control Laws

Alright. Surprise, surprise there’s been another mass-shooting in the United States. In California this time. Unless the United does something, we can expect to hear of another shooting around February/March next year. This one was carried out, as we understand it at the moment, a disgruntled employee. 14 people were killed and, as it stands as of writing this, another 21 people have been wounded, making this the worst mass-shooting since Sandy Hook.

President Obama will again attempt to get Gun Control laws passed and again they will fail because the NRA shouts out 2^nd Amendment “the right to keep and bear Arms”. Let’s have a look at what the 2^nd Amendment actually says:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

Now, the first three words of the Amendment tell you Americans that your own forefathers supported Gun Control. “A well-regulated Militia”. What America currently has is not well-regulated and it is not a Militia. Your forefathers wanted you to have guns and wanted to prevent the Government from taking them off you, that is correct. But they also wanted to have regulations on what kinds of guns that you could own. And let’s not forget that this was written during the time the British were still holding parts of the newly formed United States of America making it extremely outdated by around 239 years.

The Amendment gives you the right to help defend your country from foreign invaders (and no, Refugees are not considered to be foreign invaders), however, it does not give you the right to go and shoot up your workplace because your boss pissed you off. It does not give you the right to shoot up your school because a girl rejected you. It does not give you the right to shoot your neighbour dead because their dog was barking at 6 AM on a Sunday morning.

A little fun fact for you Americans: the USA is the only 1^st World country to have mass-shootings. Russia doesn’t have mass-shootings, the UK doesn’t have mass-shootings, Australia and New Zealand don’t have mass-shootings. Three of those four countries have gun bans or very strict gun ownership laws. The fourth has no gun ownership laws other than being a legal adult at the time of purchase and an extensive background check.

“More guns will make us safer because it will allow us to defend ourselves”. America has the most guns per capita of any country in the world and it also has the most mass-shootings per capita of any country in the world. That is not opinion, that is hard data. And what that says to me is that arming everyone to their teeth with guns is not the answer.

Another commonly used reason by the NRA is that “Gun Control takes guns away from law-abiding citizens making them vulnerable to criminals” and my personal favourite “the law doesn’t apply to criminals”. Now, to be fair to the NRA, these reasons do have some basis in fact and not the fairy tale they construct in their heads. Laws do not stop criminals from doing illegal actions and Gun Control would restrict the sale of certain weapons. However if we did things based on “Laws don’t apply to criminals” then why do we have Drug Laws? Traffic Laws? Tax Laws. You break any law and you are considered to be a criminal. Meth is illegal in the United States, but that doesn’t mean that someone can’t get their hands on Meth if they really want it, but Drug Laws still exist to protect the public. It’s illegal to run Red Lights but every year millions of people do just that, yet Traffic Laws still exist. And if anyone says they’ve never lied on their tax forms I’d be calling them a liar because it is estimated that around a billion people globally lie when it comes to doing their tax. That’s around half of the global workforce, yet Tax Laws still exist. So the idea that Gun Laws shouldn’t be around because they won’t do anything is stupid. Gun Control laws might not do anything to stop criminals, but criminals have not been the ones conducting these mass-shootings. Lunatics or people who are blinded by rage in the heat of the moment are the ones doing it. Taking guns out of their hands would save potentially tens of thousands of lives in the long run.

You want a gun for self-defence? Fine. A Shotgun at most is all you need. You don’t need an AK-47 or an M16 Assault Riffle for self-defence. Not to mention they are military standard weapons.

A lesser used reason used by Gun Control opposition is that if the American military falls, the only people left to defend the country will be the civilians themselves. In theory, it sounds good, but you don’t have to think about it too much to see it fall apart. The American military is one of the most powerful militaries in the world. If a force is strong enough to take out the military, I’d very seriously question if there’s anything that a group of loosely led civilians, regardless of how large they are, would be able to do to stop it. The force that was strong enough to defeat the United States would likely have access to Nuclear Weapons, meaning that the civilian “army” (using the term very loosely) might not even get off a shot before being defeated themselves.

There will be tears shed and a lot of anger over the next few weeks, but we all know what will happen: Gun Control laws will be rejected again and we’ll be having the same conversation again early next year. My question to you Americans, is what will it take for you to value the lives of innocent people over your own personal freedoms? What will it take for you to see that giving up your guns is the only way to prevent these mass-shootings? 

******
Ok, I'm not sure why three quarters of the post is highlighted. You'll have to put up with it for now.
Don't forget to check out the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Controversialism/ because I post there when I put up another post here.

Spanking

Paris is still a big thing at the moment, but I’ve talked about that twice now so I’m going to leave it for a while.

Instead, I’m going to open up the argument of spanking kids.

I’m in favour of it. There is a clear difference between spanking a child and hitting/beating a child.

I was spanked twice as a child. The first time was because I ran across the road without looking, and the second time was because I wandered off with a friend without telling my parents where I was going. In both cases I learnt a lesson. In the first case, I learnt to look before crossing the road because next time it might not be a hand that hits me. The second case taught me that being slapped on my ass might not be the worst thing to happen to me if I didn’t tell my parents where I going when I left the house again. In both cases, they were open handed and hand only. No wooden spoons and/or belts were used. They were hard enough to make me feel it, but not so hard as to leave a mark or an imprint. That is a spank. However, using a wooden spoon, a belt, your fist or anything other than an open hand with extreme force (i.e. the force of it draws blood or leaves an imprint), that is hitting/beating a child.

The fact is that children need to learn that their actions have consequences and parents need to be able to discipline their children, as long as it is reasonable, without fear of being charged. Parents these days either believe that talking to their child is the best way to get a message across, and in some cases that is probably right. You’re not going to spank your child for stealing a chocolate bar or something like that, but if they do very dangerous to either themselves or someone else then you would at least consider it. If they don’t believe that talking is the way to go, then the only thing they can do is nothing because the law now makes any form of punishment illegal and punishable by a heavy fine, or even jail.

This is causing the younger generation to have a lack of respect for older generations. Look at your Grandparents. I can guarantee that they were spanked at least once when they were kids and look at the level of respect they showed their elders. They didn’t fear their parents. They respected them and those older than themselves because that is what they were taught. Today, respect is a foreign concept to kids. That’s why you see kids, around the age of 12, walk down the street, walk into a 30-40 year old person and yell at them “YOU WANNA FUCKING GO CUNT?! I’LL SMASH YOUR FUCKING FACE IN YOU UGLY DOG!”. That’s why prisons are currently overflowing with people aged 18-25, because they didn’t learn respect. They didn’t learn that their actions have consequences.

The common argument from those who oppose spanking is that “it teaches obedience through fear”. My response to that is, “So?”. If children to fear their parents to behave, is that a bad thing? It’s certainly better than what we have now which is a world where parents fear their children. Not fear for the lives of their children, but fear their children.

“You should sit your child down and explain to them why what they did is wrong”. Children don’t think the way we do. Children live in a world where Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. They’re not going to understand the how and why you shouldn’t do things, even if they did pay attention to you. Some will, of course, there are vary intelligence kids. But those are a minority among children. The majority of children run around eating grass and glue. So if they need fear to behave, so be it.

Anyway, that’s all I’m going to say. One last thing I will tell you is that when I have kids of my own, no law is going to stop me from disciplining them in any way that I feel is required. If that’s a sit down, then that’s what it will be. If that’s a spanking, then it’ll be a spanking. Anyway, that’s it for this topic. Leave comments either below or on the Facebook page if you want to, I don’t really care but that is sort of the point of why I do this, to spark conversations.

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Controversialism/

The Paris Attacks and Defeating ISIS/ISIL

I didn’t want to talk about this. Mainly because it’s being covered by every media outlet, in every country around the world. But after several rants on Social Media with people who just have no clue what they are talking about, I decided I have to talk about it. And, I don’t reference anything I write on here because the information is out there and it is very easy to find. And I’m especially not referencing this one, because if I referenced every little detail, it would be months before I finished writing this.

France. Paris. The City of Love. And this week, it became the City of Death. 132 innocent people, at last count as of today November 17 2015, lost their lives to violence and terrorism of the Islamic kind.

In the previous post, I talked about the rules for something to be classified as a terrorist attack. Let’s go through the list:

-          More than 2 casualties? Last I checked 132 is more than 2. Check.

-          Incites fear in the community? The French are terrified at the moment. The army patrols the streets, so yeah. Check.

-          Supported or carried out by a recognised terrorist group? ISIL claimed responsibility. Whether or not they actually did it is another thing but to claim it they obviously support it, so check.

We have all three rules met so it’s a terrorist attack.

Now, the common reaction to the attacks in America and here in Australia and several other nations looking at taking in refugees is “keep the fuckers out!” and various other forms of that. It’s all the same thing.

Now I am not naïve enough to think that ISIS isn’t using the refugee crisis as a tactic to insert Sleeper Cells (terrorists posing as harmless refugees but awaiting instructions from ISIS leaders) into Western Nations. But I am also not heartless enough to turn away people fleeing the hell holes they’ve left behind in hopes of starting a new and safer life. If the situation was reversed, we’d be begging Syria and Iraq to take us in. But there is a process that needs to be followed and that is where detention centres come in. They hold these refugees while keeping the nation safe while the Government determines who is a refugee and who is a terrorist.

And stop with all this “ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!” crap. As I pointed out in the previous post, there five forms of terrorism. Muslim, or Religious, terrorism is not the only threat out there. “ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS!” would be a little more correct, but still wrong.

And before someone even thinks of calling me a racist. This isn’t racist because Muslim isn’t a race.

The Paris attack was claimed by ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, which is different from ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. ISIL is the weaker little brother of ISIS.

So how do we fight back? How do we hurt ISIS and ISIL? Simple. We use the most powerful weapon mankind has ever conceived: the Atomic Bomb. And before you get all up about and say “But what about their culture, the innocent people?” A) Their culture is part of the problem and B) This is a war, and like it or not, there is always collateral damage on the part of innocents. Even if we invaded ISIS and ISIL territory, innocent civilians would certainly be killed as a result. “But the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of Nuclear Weapons!”. That is partially correct. The Geneva Convention and various other international treaties do restrict the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons. However, they do permit the usage of nuclear weapons under “last resort circumstances”. Now, I’m fairly sure that if you know a full scale invasion will cost you a good couple of million lives, you can claim “last resort circumstances” and drop a nuke. Take out their leadership and ISIL and ISIS turn into squabbling street gangs who are about as dangerous as a toddler with a sharp object: they appear threatening, but they’re more likely to hurt themselves than you.

Terrorism and the Refugee Crisis

Welcome reader to my blog. I’ll try to keep this introduction short so I can talk about the topic I want to sooner. Basically, the point of this blog is to discuss Political, Social and/or Humanitarian issues around the world. Some of these will be nationally focussed. Some will be internationally focussed. And some will be globally focussed. I’ll be aiming to post once a week. Twice if I can. These are my views, you don’t have to agree with them. In fact I’m not asking you to. If you don’t agree, great! Put across your own view and that can be discussed as well. I will say this though: expect to be treated with the same level of respect that you show others. I’m not going to put language restrictions, because I know that they won’t be followed anyway. But, if you start swearing at others and all that keyboard-warrior shit, expect to take it back as well. You’ve been warned.

The first topic, as you’ve probably guessed from the title of the post: Terrorism and the Refugee Crisis.

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), in the wake of the Egyptian Plane Crash, have now been labelled as one of, if not the most, deadliest terrorist groups in the world since Al Qaeda in 2001. We can certainly all agree that ISIS has been responsible for the most deaths produced by a single terrorist group since the 9/11 attacks (regardless of whether or not you believe that to have been an inside job).

But how do we define “Terrorism”, and what are the rules that dictate whether or not an event is actually a terrorist attack?

Firstly, “Terrorism” is a very complex issue. There are several different ways that Terrorism can occur, but they all roughly fall into one of five categories: Religious, Ethnic (or Nationalist), Right-Wing, Left-Wing and lastly, State-Sponsored.

Religious Terrorism is terrorism carried out with the intent of advancing an ideological cause or belief.

Ethnic or Nationalist Terrorism is terrorism carried out to elevate the status of an ethnic minority or as an attempt to create a new state. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, this is the most common form of terrorism, not Religious Terrorism, though the two do occasionally coincide.

Right-Wing Terrorism is terrorism conducted to try and maintain the status-quo in the face of radical change. A Right-Wing group for example is the KKK, and more will crop up as the Refugee Crisis continues. I’ll get to that a bit later.

Left-Wing Terrorism is the opposite of the Right-Wing Terrorism and all about radical political change.

State-Sponsored Terrorism is where a country (referred to as a state in this context), supports the actions of a terrorist group by either training them, giving them money, granting them asylum, giving them weapons, or supporting them in any way you can think of. A good example of this is Libya and Hezbollah.

So, with these five categories, how do we define “Terrorism” as a whole? We can’t. The United Nations has tried and failed to come up with a universally agreed definition of “Terrorism”. As a result, each country has a different definition. I won’t go through them all because if I did, I would never finish writing this, but the commonality between them all is something like this: Terrorism is any act that incites fear within the general civilian population and looks to advance an ethnic, political or ideological cause. You will not find that particular definition anywhere, because that is just an amalgamation of several Western definitions of “Terrorism”. Islamic Countries, Asian Countries, European Countries and African Countries all have either similar definitions, or completely different definitions.

And what about the rules that define a terrorist attack? If a Muslim brings a bomb to a school and shouts “Alluhah Akbar!” before detonating it, is that a terrorist attack? The answer is: it depends. The media will try to call it a terrorist attack, but that doesn’t automatically make it a terrorist attack.

The rules of a terrorist attack:

-          -It must cause at least two casualties in a single attack (excluding the attacker) or have had the potential to cause two or more deaths. If it only causes one, that’s not an attack. It’s a murder.

-          -It must incite fear in the civilian population of the area attacked. If it doesn’t, was it really an attack?

-         - It must be either carried out by a recognised terrorist group OR be supported by a recognised terrorist group. If the group isn’t a recognised group, then what you’re dealing with is a criminal, not a terrorist.

The attack must meet all three of those rules to be classified as a terrorist attack, though the first rule can be fluid at certain times. For example, if it’s the leader of a nation or a Head-of-State that was killed, and they were the only person killed, odds are that is going to be a terrorist attack regardless of whether the other two rules were met simply because of who was killed.

So let’s go back to our Muslim Bomber. More than two casualties? Unless it was done a weekend, I’d say it’s more than likely at least two people died, so check. Incites fear? Probably going to. Check. Supported by a recognised terrorist group? We don’t know. The media will try to push for it, but unless a recognised terrorist group comes out and says “Yes, we ordered this attack” or “We didn’t order this attack but we support it” or we find evidence that our Muslim Bomber was in contact with a recognised terrorist group, it’s not a terrorist attack. And just being a Muslim is not enough evidence to say that it was a terrorist attack, and- on a quick side note- being Anti-Muslim is not Racism. It has nothing to do with being a Patriot. It’s to do with the fact that “Muslim” is not a race. Please, tell me which country Muslims come from. Australians come from Australia. Americans from America. Japanese from Japan. So Muslims must come from Muslimania, right? No. Muslimania isn’t a country. In fact it’s not even a word. The term “Muslim” is a collective noun for the followers of Islam, in the same way that “Christian” is the collective noun for followers of Christianity, “Jewish” for Judaism, “Hindu” for Hinduism, “Buddhist” for Buddhism, etc… Notice the difference between a race and a religion? So the next time, someone calls you racist for being an Anti-Muslim, you can point out the difference to them in a logical way rather than just hurling abuse at them.

Anyway, back on topic. How does “Terrorism”, regardless of how we’re defining it, fit into the Refugee Crisis? Very easily. Look at where the Refugees are coming from. Syria. Iraq. Iran. Libya, Nigeria and many others. All of them are countries that have been torn apart by war and terrorism. Particularly Iraq and Syria where ISIS is very active. Now, I have no doubt that a lot of the people fleeing these countries, are legitimate refugees. I have no doubt about that. Roughly 20 million people was the last estimate I believe. ISIS, the most dangerous terrorist group in existence at the moment, is estimated to have only 30 000-300 000 “soldiers” (using the term loosely), so a very large majority of that 20 million are probably legitimate refugees. And I think we can all agree that if it was our country that was war-torn and continually under terrorist threat, we would want other countries to do what they are currently asking us to do, if fighting wasn’t option. I don’t even have a problem with taking in refugees. Life, whether you are religious or not, is a sacred and special thing. In the Western World that everyone, with a select exception, has the right to live. As Humanity, we have not a legal obligation, but a moral obligation to save people if we can. But, like I said before, these countries also have a high level of terrorist activity and we have an obligation to our own people to ensure that we are taking in refugees and not sleep-cell terrorists. That’s the whole point of Detention Centres: to detain people claiming to be refugees while we establish if they are actually refugees and not a threat to our society. If they are deemed to be legitimate refugees, they are allowed into the country where the government finds them housing and allows them to start a new life. If not, they’re deported back to the hell-hole that they left behind.

I hold Left-Wing views. I’ll admit that right now. I believe in equality, I believe that everyone has a right to equal opportunity. I believe the struggling and the poor are deserving of the help of the wealthy. However, I do believe that there is also a correct way of doing things. Simply inundating yourself with refugees to try and make you friendly and gain popularity with your people without checking them first, is A) not safe and, B) is not the right way to do it.

We need to properly check these refugees are actually refugees or we run the risk of becoming the countries that terrorists want to create.