4-year-old girl shoots and kills 4-year-old cousin, police say

Yeah because it is so tragic to ban items that are designed to kill others. So tragic.

 

So, is this the same Detroit where the Chief of Police recently said they needed more private gun ownership to clean up the streets and reduce crime?!

Yep!

 

Are you serious? The causal relationship there is obvious as hell. There are two ways that a gun can stop an attacker. 1. The attacker can be shot. 2. The attacker can be threatened with being shot. When people are threatened with being shot, they will usually flee. Brandishing, or even reaching for, a gun is a clear threat to the attacker that they better beat feet out of there or get a new hole in their body. Even you must understand this, so stop playing dumb just to keep up your liberal caricature.

 

It is not the banning which is tragic, it is the abrogation of human rights which are tragic. There is no doubt more people will die from gun violence if guns are banned . Remove guns from criminals, not law abiding citizens.

 

So, what's the problem? That people can resolve disputes voluntarily using non-state arbitrators? Sounds like freedom to me. Your link says that these people still have the state's legal options, but some CHOOSE other arbitration. Good for G.B. for giving people options.

 

You've got to be kidding. Sharia law limits the rights of the woman. Islamic law limits her movements, where she can go, when she can leave etc. How in God's name is this helping women? You are giving the sexist Islamic law power over these women by giving it as an option.

 

Why? I understand that knives are also banned. What next?

"If it really were about removing especially hazardous things from the environment, there would be nothing left. We would live in an empty world. No mountain passes, bridges, roads, or cars. No naked flames, waterfalls, or lakes. No kitchen knives, meat cleavers, or ovens. No hammers, screwdrivers, or wrenches. No cigars, pipes, wine, or whiskey. No pitchforks, axes, or lawnmowers. We’d need to remove everything under some vast government civilian protection plan. Then we could convert the whole world into a huge kid-safe playground, full of colorful rubberized furniture and spongy floors. Michael Bloomberg would probably like that.j"
http://neilkramer.com/cult-of-the-god-men.html

 

It does not limit their rights, as your own link states. "They actually have other rights and our view, better rights, under English law." See. They still have those rights. Plus another right, called freedom of religion.

 

You really need to read about Sharia law. There are stark contrasts in the treatment of women between the two.

We know Sharia law subjugates women. If you give that law acceptability in the English court system most Islamic women will stay with Sharia Law to continue to be accepted by their men and their community views.

We don't allow people of Aztec ancestry to sacrifice humans for the sake of freedom of religion.

Please, read about Islamic Law. Clearly you don't understand how women are subjugated.

 

You don't think that the loss of their child or the lifetime of guilt for the loss of someone else's child is punishment enough?

 

But they aren't in the English court system. And if Islamic women want to go with private arbitration, I see no reason to deny them that choice.

That's just a strawman. Besides, I'm pretty sure no one still practicies ancient Aztec religion. Ancestry=/=religion.

I understand just fine. I just believe in allowing people to follow their own customs. This is VOLUNTARY. When the actual government enforces Sharia Law on those who don't want it, then there is a problem. But that is not the case.

 

Why would we want to. They are doing a good job of eliminating crime in their areas by eliminating the criminals. If they just keep it up, soon there will only be 2 of them and then only 1.

 

The Crown considers all of you Brits criminals I guess...except of course the REAL criminals...

"Even after banning most handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and even pump-action weapons larger than 22′s, firearms still make their way into the hands of criminals in the United Kingdom. On a number of occasions in recent years criminals have used antique guns, converted blank-firing pistols, homemade weapons and modern guns smuggled into the country to commit crimes."

http://www.guns.com/2014/01/15/uk-criminals-using-antique-homemade-guns/

 

If the laws go with Sharia law that denies women's rights under English law which is does it should NEVER be an option.

Put any religion in there that sacrifices humans or has some bizarre ritual that goes against current law and the point is still the same. You just refuse to admit it.

You still don't get it do you. Its not VOLUNTARY if the culture and religion already subjugates women. You are putting women in a situation to be ostracized by their community or loose their rights as women under Sharia Law as opposed to English law.

Why do you think the US doesn't allow this? This isn't customs, this is Islamic LAW. Do you understand the difference between law and custom?

 

Of course I'm serious. "I reached for my gun, so he ran" is a highly subjective claim.

I'm not playing dumb: if just reaching for one's gun was so effective, then why carry a gun for self-defense? Why not just reach for a pretend gun every time you feel threatened? They'll surely run away.

You mentioned "attacker" a few times. What is an attacker? To some people, an attacker may be somebody approaching you quickly. To others, it's somebody who hits you or aims a firearm at you, etc. This is a problem with Castle/Stand Your Ground -- everybody has different thresholds of what they see as threatening.

 

What you mean is that practicing Islam should never be an option for Muslims. I disagree; I believe in freedom of religion.

Human sacrifice is not a civil dispute subject to voluntary arbitration. It is not remotely comparable.

Oh, so they will be ostracized from their community, huh? That is the only real punishment these "laws" can inflict upon the unwilling: a sort of excommunication. I guess they'll just have to make some new friends then, huh?

I do understand the difference. Do you? LAWS are things made by, and enforced by, governments. A religion may call their edicts "laws", but unless the government is a theocracy controlled by that particular religion, those rules are not laws. If someone wants to not be bound by the Islamic code of conduct, guess what? There is a real obvious solution there: stop being Muslim. One can CHOOSE to be bound by Islamic "law" in Great Britian, or choose not to be. They cannot choose to not be bound by the ACTUAL laws of the country. See the difference now?

 

Well, they might run away, but they might call your bluff. That's why you need a real gun. You never know how an assailant will react.

Yes, it is somewhat subjective. A court will usually adopt the standard of what a "reasonable person" would perceive in the situation, and the judge or jury will decide if the person in question was "reasonable". This will vary from case to case.

 

I disagree. I'm not saying ban guns. Banning rarely works. I'm trying to say there are alternative ways to protect yourself without killing the person in the process. Most people that own guns are civilians. Not trained officers.

If there were less guns less people would be killed.

You're looking at the wrong sources mate. You're blowing Islamic verses out of its original context, though I'm not saying Muslims are the ultimate champion of women rights.

Ban anything that is used to deliberately harm people. Simple. Very effective law in the UK. Guns are designed to hurt/kill others. Though I know the situation in America is very different. To ban dangerous items would cause a mass heart attacks throughout the entire country.

You should follow your own advice.

http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/do_muslim_women_have_rights.php

Like I said I'm not saying Muslims are champions of women rights. But I do believe you are exaggerating you're claims.

Go to a Muslim forum and present you're claim. You will find you will be verbally trashed in a debate against them (speaking from personal experience). Either you are being mislead about Islam stance on women by reading corrupt sources or you are misleading others.

 

What law not already on the books would do anything to protect the children form obtaining guns? Irresponsible owners are the reason these youngsters get a hold of loaded weapons. Laws are already on the books to prosecute this. No reason to make a gun law

 

Not when it infringes on Women's rights under British law. What do you have against women?

Of course it is since it is a religious practice just like subjugating women is for Sharia Law.

Uh, YEAH.

A new documentary secretly filmed inside several of the 85 Islamic Sharia Law courts operating in Britain has exposed the systematic discrimination that many women are suffering at the hands of Muslim jurists.

The documentary, Secrets of Britain's Sharia Courts, was filmed by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and was first aired on BBC Panorama, a long-running current affairs program, on April 8.

The undercover investigation proves what has long been suspected: namely, that Sharia courts, which operate in mosques and houses across Britain, routinely issue rulings on domestic and marital issues according to Islamic Sharia law that are at odds with British law. Although Sharia rulings are not legally binding, those subject to the rulings often feel obliged to obey them as a matter of religious belief, or because of pressure from family and community members to do so.

The documentary contends that the Sharia courts, run by Muslim judges known as qadi, are putting women at risk of violence from abusive husbands by pressuring them to stay in abusive marriages.

In one case, the BBC secretly filmed proceedings at the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton, a heavily Islamized area in east London. While there, a BBC reporter met Sonia, a Muslim woman from Leeds who has suffered extreme physical abuse from her husband. When Sonia obtained a civil divorce, the courts allowed her husband only indirect access to the children.

But when Sonia went to Leyton Sharia Council for an Islamic divorce, she was told she would have to give up custody of the children to her husband. According to British law, Sharia courts are not allowed to interfere in child access matters.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3682/uk-sharia-courts

Please for the love of God do some reading on the subject.

Yeah, its that easy in your simplistic mind isn't it? Read the article I linked to and get educated.

Far better than you do obviously.

My God your simplistic view of the world is just sad. Read the article. These women are subjugated in a foreign country where they only come from one community. Its not even close to be easy to leave.

The BBC then sent an undercover reporter to the Leyton Sharia Council to see what advice its members would give a vulnerable female client. Her story was that her husband was hitting her.

During the proceedings, the secret recordings show that Suhaib Hasan, a senior member of the Leyton Sharia Council, told the undercover reporter that going to the police would result in her having to go to a shelter, which, he said, was a "very bad option."

Hasan suggested that she ask herself if the violence was due to her own actions, then urged her to redouble her efforts to be a good wife by cooking and cleaning for her husband.

They grow up being told Islamic Law is the only Law and now you are allowing courts to infringe upon their rights as women.

Read:

The documentary also shows a woman named Ayesha who has been physically abused by her estranged husband and then went to the Dewsbury Sharia Council to get a divorce. Although her husband has been imprisoned for violence, Ayesha was told she would have to go to mediation with him. The advice ignored injunctions issued by a British court and which Ayesha and her children hold against her husband due to his abuse According to Ayesha, "I cannot do that because he is not even allowed near my house, and because I am frightened. I cannot face him... but they did not take any notice.".

You still are running around the question I've asked you. Do you not understand the very fact they can practice Sharia Law which discriminates against women in so many ways is in direct conflict with women's rights under British law?

What part of that do you not understand? Why would you allow women a system of religious LAW to infringe upon the rights of women? Explain yourself.

 

My God PLEASE start reading something on the subject.

The BBC then sent an undercover reporter to the Leyton Sharia Council to see what advice its members would give a vulnerable female client. Her story was that her husband was hitting her.

During the proceedings, the secret recordings show that Suhaib Hasan, a senior member of the Leyton Sharia Council, told the undercover reporter that going to the police would result in her having to go to a shelter, which, he said, was a "very bad option."

Hasan suggested that she ask herself if the violence was due to her own actions, then urged her to redouble her efforts to be a good wife by cooking and cleaning for her husband.

The BBC also filmed proceedings at Sharia Council of Dewsbury, a city in West Yorkshire that is a magnet for Muslim immigration. (Islamists have promised to turn Dewsbury into an independent Islamic state ruled by Sharia law, and entirely apart from British jurisprudence.)

The documentary also shows a woman named Ayesha who has been physically abused by her estranged husband and then went to the Dewsbury Sharia Council to get a divorce. Although her husband has been imprisoned for violence, Ayesha was told she would have to go to mediation with him. The advice ignored injunctions issued by a British court and which Ayesha and her children hold against her husband due to his abuse.

According to Ayesha, "I cannot do that because he is not even allowed near my house, and because I am frightened. I cannot face him... but they did not take any notice."

After an outside lawyer became involved in Ayesha's case, the Dewsbury Sharia Council eventually agreed to see Ayesha on her own. It took Ayesha two years for her divorce to be granted by the council, by which time her husband had re-married in Pakistan.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3682/uk-sharia-courts

LOL I don't read such flagrant propeganda.

That's because you haven't read anything on the subject of Sharia Law in England.

LOL Why would I go to a forum when I can read real world examples including some from an undercover Briitsh reporter?

You really need to read real world examples and stop going to propaganda websites.

And if you think you would get an honest debate in a Muslim forum you really are beyond help. Deal with real world examples, not propaganda.

 

I have. I have studied Islam at school. Books written by academics. Did not rely on sources from the mainstream media.

You only heard one side of the story.

http://www.islamic-sharia.org/panorama.html

Why would Muslims lie about their own religion?

Yes I have. I have even mentioned a book which I have read as part of my studies. You're simply too close minded to consider it.

Because the mainstream media is not a good source for information. The media is interested in getting publicity, not presenting factual information. There is a difference between what Muslims do and what Islam states. A clear distinction. The media mixes the two.

You really need to start reading actual books. I even mentioned one. How do you know they are propaganda? You're not interested in learning about the religion. You are fixed on what you want to believe and then look for sources to confirm what you already believe. Like I said before if you actually studied the religion and met Muslims they have no reason to lie about their religion. They got nothing to gain from it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/

^ Are you going to say this is propaganda too? Read it. You may learn something.

That is the problem. You're mixing what Islam says and what Muslims do. Many Muslims do not actually follow Islam. So these "real world examples" are events that are not in accordance with the Sharia in the first place.

Why would they even lie? They seriously have got nothing to get out of it. Go ahead and debate them. They fully understand the Qur'an and Hadiths. Many have in-depth knowledge of the Sharia and actually live in the Muslim world.

You are simply close minded. I bet you're the type of person who would take lessons from a Nazi to learn about Jews and their religion. Or take lessons from a fully devout Christian to learn about evolution lol.

 

What was this thread about originally?

 

^ Good point lol. I've gone off topic haha.