Oh, I'm not Muslim nor am I speaking for the Muslim community (though rereading that I can see how it was inferred). I was speaking generally.

I completely agree with you. A military option could all but destroy ISIS, but more violence is likely to just continue the blood feud for the next generation. We have to break the cycle somewhere.

And I didn't mean my comment as a criticism of you personally.

I don't know what we should do, I just know what we've done for the last 30 years has created the current mess in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya.

Ugh, hopefully I'm on a distant continent from you

Yes, because the US is doing so well with guns, right?

And you're wrong about Switzerland, by the way. Their gun ownership percentages are only around 30% (still relatively high, but definitely not "every advlt"), and only men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the military and thus have a military obligation to keep their guns in their home. In addition, the reason stuff like this doesn't happen in Switzerland has nothing to do with the fact that "everyone has guns, derp", but more with the fact that Switzerland is a prosperous nation with neutral international politics and little corruption. They've arranged things well. And Switzerland isn't even the safest country in the world, they have "low to middling" rates of crime. The safest country in the world is considered to be Iceland, at the moment (according to the Global Peace Index), and they have relatively regulated gun control there. Switzerland ranks fifth on this list, which isn't bad, but it does rank after a few other nations with more strict gun control.

Guns have nothing to do with it.

Wow, a political thread that has made it to two pages. ^^

yeah, easy access to weapons and munitions are not as much of a good thing for protecting the populace as many people seem to think..

ahh yes History (an area of interest and some expertise for me), you realize those same ancient times had it so where ease of weapon access allowed groups of bandit or terrorists to easily be as heavily armed as military's themselves.. where a young boy violates another families daughter and those ease of weapon access causes a dynasty war so fierce the nations actual military is to afraid to intervene that goes on for so long 3 generations later they can't even remember why they are fighting (think Hatfield-McCoy feud, only much bloodier).. where it made it so once a new person takes office or throne those with opposing political views could easily instigate a civil war just because they don't like the guy? or where it became easier for opposing forces to enter another country and easily prepare arms after their arrival?


you can't just go "everyone should be able to have weapons, that way they can defend themselves''' because history shows its not that simple.. yes, some people will be able to protect themselves, but it also makes it much easier for those people they are supposed to be protected against to also gain such arms..
its a double edged sword, and you need some kind of advanced screening process and registry to make sure dangerous or risky individuals can't get ahold of a fully automatic by just walking into a gun shop and saying "hey, i live in this country and should be able to protect myself, hey is that an under-barreled grenade launcher!"

Digital Ancient has no idea what he is talking about. People here armed? I hope this will never happen. We are not savages.

Guns, politics and these forums do not mix.