Another Mass Shooting

foutsrouts · December 4, 2015

I don't know how many outstanding microbiologists ISIS has on staff, but I'm betting that number is close to 0.

Maybe not in Syria, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they employ more than one sympathizer in that field right here in the old USA. Even more likely in Europe and the Middle East for that matter. Who needs a microbiologist anyway if the lunatic has a sack of rat poison and 10 bucks for a meal at his/her local buffet.

Edited December 4, 2015 by foutsrouts

foutsrouts · December 4, 2015

Better ban the pit bulls.

Probably not a bad idea.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/michigan-boy-mauled-to-death/index.html

We got charged by one just last week while hiking by a lake, but luckily he turned out to be a tail wagging sweetie. We pet him for awhile until his ahole owner finally showed up to take him away.

Rudy · December 5, 2015

I don't know how many outstanding microbiologists ISIS has on staff, but I'm betting that number is close to 0.

Don't bet your Star Wars figures on that. But if they have even just one, that's too many.

keith · December 5, 2015

Yes, guns are probably less lethal than other killing alternatives out there like bombs, viruses, and poisons. I'm actually kind of surprised that we haven't seen one of those latter two alternatives employed somewhere by now.

Google Tokoyo subway sarin atrack.

UNT90 · December 7, 2015

The arguments for/against the Syrian situations (few potential terrorists...most refugees are safe and want asylum) and those against gun restriction (few crazies out there committing these shootings...most are law abiding citizens) are really the same aren't they?

Both liberals and conservatives are somewhat in denial saying they are not.

No, they are not. Liberals want to blame a machine for the actions of a PERSON. Conservatives want the refugees taken care of in a country of similar culture due to some of those PEOPLE having a propensity for terrorism, or maybe even being a pre-recruited terrorist.

Conservatives are concerned with the actions of PEOPLE. Liberals, never wanting to blame PEOPLE for anything, want to ban a simple machine, leaving many other machines on the market that PEOPLE can use to do the same thing a gun does. Liberals refuse to understand that a ban only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Because criminals, you see, don't obey the laws. Murder is illegal, yet that didn't deter any of these mass shooters, did it?

It's stupid to the inth degree and a very emotional response (see the first post in this thread as an example). Think with your brain, not with your feelings.

CMJ · December 7, 2015

No, they are not. Liberals want to blame a machine for the actions of a PERSON. Conservatives want the refugees taken care of in a country of similar culture due to some of those PEOPLE having a propensity for terrorism, or maybe even being a pre-recruited terrorist.
Conservatives are concerned with the actions of PEOPLE. Liberals, never wanting to blame PEOPLE for anything, want to ban a simple machine, leaving many other machines on the market that PEOPLE can use to do the same thing a gun does. Liberals refuse to understand that a ban only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Because criminals, you see, don't obey the laws. Murder is illegal, yet that didn't deter any of these mass shooters, did it?
It's stupid to the inth degree and a very emotional response (see the first post in this thread as an example). Think with your brain, not with your feelings.

I am sorry, the idea that we should keep out all of these refugees because 0.001% of the folks trying to claim asylum might be terrorists, is a very emotional response.

Edited December 7, 2015 by CMJ

Censored by Laurie · December 7, 2015

NY Times Editorial

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

plus perspective from Australia and Ireland

CMJ · December 7, 2015

Note: I am not a gun owner and it is unlikely I ever will be.

That said, I am not at all against folks being able to purchase them. Not even the really heavy duty stuff (though maybe in depth psychological background checks might be nice). I know plenty of gun owners. My grandfather, a truly sweet man, owns them. I understand most gun owners are perfectly safe.

My earlier point was that I also think these refugees are safe by and large as well. I know it is beyond cliche, but we should strive to the poem on the Statue of Liberty - which really was a mission statement of sorts for the country 120-ish years ago. I ask we live up to it with refugees from a war torn area. Those are the very definition of huddled masses.

"Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

UNT90 · December 7, 2015

I am sorry, the idea that we should keep out all of these refugees because 0.001% of the folks trying to claim asylum might be terrorists, is a very emotional response.

If it saves one American life, it's not an emotional response.

The emotional response is letting in people from a terrorist held area with no possible way to vet these people to tell if they are terrorist plants or sympathizers, all because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. You gave a stat of 0.0001%. Where is your source for that? It doesn't exist because WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING who these people are, much less what their political/religious affiliations are. Your stat is a purely emotional response because you don't want to believe people are bad. It's sweet, but extremely naive.

Ill ask you the same question Quoner refused to answer. If letting in 10,000 Syrian refuges leads to one American death due to terrorism, is that ok with you?

Note: I am not a gun owner and it is unlikely I ever will be.

That said, I am not at all against folks being able to purchase them. Not even the really heavy duty stuff (though maybe in depth psychological background checks might be nice). I know plenty of gun owners. My grandfather, a truly sweet man, owns them. I understand most gun owners are perfectly safe.

My earlier point was that I also think these refugees are safe by and large as well. I know it is beyond cliche, but we should strive to the poem on the Statue of Liberty - which really was a mission statement of sorts for the country 120-ish years ago. I ask we live up to it with refugees from a war torn area. Those are the very definition of huddled masses.

"Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

What that quote doesn't say is "GIVE ME YOUR TERRORIST."

CMJ · December 7, 2015

If putting even one more background check on owning guns would prevent one American death, it that okay with you?

UNT90 · December 7, 2015

If putting even one more background check on owning guns would prevent one American death, it that okay with you?

Answer the question. We aren't talking about gun control, we are talking about allowing potential terrorist into this country.

Are you OK if one American is killed in an act of terror committed by a Syrian refugee?

NY Times Editorial
Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

plus perspective from Australia and Ireland

"Look over here! Look over here!"

Tyoical liberal response. This was an act of terror. If not guns, they would have used anything available.

Typical liberal distraction from a terrible liberal rag that doesn't care about the truth.

CMJ · December 7, 2015

No- that's what you're talking about. I began talking about how both sides react the same way, but can't see it. Hell, you know that is what I was arguing, because you denied it and quoted me!

Edited December 7, 2015 by CMJ

Censored by Laurie · December 7, 2015

Answer the question. We aren't talking about gun control, we are talking about allowing potential terrorist into this country.
Are you OK if one American is killed in an act of terror committed by a Syrian refugee?
"Look over here! Look over here!"
Tyoical liberal response. This was an act of terror. If not guns, they would have used anything available.
Typical liberal distraction from a terrible liberal rag that doesn't care about the truth.

nah. nothing emotional at all about this response.

UNT90 · December 7, 2015

nah. nothing emotional at all about this response.

Bout time you came around.

No- that's what you're talking about. I began talking about how both sides react the same way, but can't see it. Hell, you know what is what I was arguing, because you denied it and quoted me!

Still no answer to the question...

CMJ · December 7, 2015

Bout time you came around.
Still no answer to the question...

Sure, I would still let them all in. I think we'd change more hearts and minds by being compassionate. By the same token, I'd still let everyone keep arming up. I've been pretty steady on this.

I was always arguing both sides are almost unhinged - even though at essence it's the same thing. Very low risk of actual damage versus doing the "right thing." The odds overall say we should do both.

Censored by Laurie · December 7, 2015

Still no answer to the question...

here...I'll play along

"If letting in 10,000 Syrian refuges leads to one American death due to terrorism, is that ok with you?"

yes.

no one is denying that there exists a risk with admitting any refugee population...and given conditions and reliability of information, the Syrian crisis does present added challenges. that's why there exists an extensive, multi-national and multi-institutional 12-18 month vetting process...a process that makes it far more arduous to enter the country than our current passport/visa regulations. but even with the current and/or future safeguards, there are no guarantees that in two years we're not discussing a story of a Syrian refugee shooting up a building or blowing up a fry-o-later at the state fair.

but then...there are no safeguards that guarantee that an American citizen won't do the same thing.

so...at best, you're afraid and believe that barring refugees is mitigating risk...to which I have two responses
1. I'll choose not to let fear dictate my morality
2. I'd contend that the risk to American lives is made far greater by refusing refugees. it feeds and validates ISIS propaganda and would either directly or indirectly lead to others being radicalized.

MeanGreenTexan · December 7, 2015

If it saves one American life, it's not an emotional response.
The emotional response is letting in people from a terrorist held area with no possible way to vet these people to tell if they are terrorist plants or sympathizers, all because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. You gave a stat of 0.0001%. Where is your source for that? It doesn't exist because WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING who these people are, much less what their political/religious affiliations are. Your stat is a purely emotional response because you don't want to believe people are bad. It's sweet, but extremely naive.
Ill ask you the same question Quoner refused to answer. If letting in 10,000 Syrian refuges leads to one American death due to terrorism, is that ok with you?

If it's between leaving those 10k in Syria to fend for themselves, without a doubt, unequivocally, YES!

It sounds like you might think the stat is actually something like .0001% of the Syrian refugees are NOT terrorists.

I keep hearing you bring up "emotional" responses. When you allow your fear (and make no mistake, that is exactly the emotion you're reacting with) to dictate whether or not you do the right thing and help/love people, you've let the terrorists win, and you cause many many people to continue suffering.

UNT90 · December 7, 2015

Sure, I would still let them all in. I think we'd change more hearts and minds by being compassionate. By the same token, I'd still let everyone keep arming up. I've been pretty steady on this.

I was always arguing both sides are almost unhinged - even though at essence it's the same thing. Very low risk of actual damage versus doing the "right thing." The odds overall say we should do both.

So would it be ok if the one person killed was the one person in your life that you loved the most?

Because that person will be that to someone.

MeanGreenTexan · December 7, 2015

So would it be ok if the one person killed was the one person in your life that you loved the most?
Because that person will be that to someone.

I thought you weren't talking about emotion? Why are you trying to evoke an emotional response?

UNT90 · December 7, 2015

I thought you weren't talking about emotion? Why are you trying to evoke an emotional response?

I'm not. I'm asking him if it's ok with him if it's his love one that gets killed by someone we have no way of screening properly before letting them into this country.

He already said its ok if one American dies. That is the emotional response here.

Censored by Laurie · December 7, 2015

So would it be ok if the one person killed was the one person in your life that you loved the most?
Because that person will be that to someone.

yes.

there would be immeasurable sadness. and ya...I imagine a good deal of anger, but it would be directed at that individual, not at refugees or Syrians on the whole. in fact, I could envision finding some solace in the knowledge that 9,999 individual's lives were changed for the better by mine and my loved one's decision to not let fear and hatred dictate our morality.

you're going to die. and unless you chose to live your life as a shut-in, swaddled in bubble-wrap...there's a risk that it's gonna happen before your "time".

also...so we're clear for future arguments...what exactly constitutes to you an "emotional response" and how does the above not qualify?

CMJ · December 7, 2015

I'm not. I'm asking him if it's ok with him if it's his love one that gets killed by someone we have no way of screening properly before letting them into this country.
He already said its ok if one American dies. That is the emotional response here.

Would you be okay if someone died from a legally bought hand gun that might have been sold to someone who should not have been able to buy one? It's the same sort of emotional response.

In a cost/benefit analysis the potential saving thousands of people for one death is something that should be done. It's why people join the military.

UNTFan23 · December 7, 2015

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/white-house-insists-gun-controls-prevent-terror-attacks-35562040

None of the President's current proposals (On No-Fly Lists <> Allowing those people to buy a gun) would have made a difference in the recent Mass Shooting. It came from the Press Secretary himself.

Take that as however you will.

UNT90 · December 8, 2015

here...I'll play along
"If letting in 10,000 Syrian refuges leads to one American death due to terrorism, is that ok with you?"
yes.
no one is denying that there exists a risk with admitting any refugee population...and given conditions and reliability of information, the Syrian crisis does present added challenges. that's why there exists an extensive, multi-national and multi-institutional 12-18 month vetting process...a process that makes it far more arduous to enter the country than our current passport/visa regulations. but even with the current and/or future safeguards, there are no guarantees that in two years we're not discussing a story of a Syrian refugee shooting up a building or blowing up a fry-o-later at the state fair.
but then...there are no safeguards that guarantee that an American citizen won't do the same thing.

so...at best, you're afraid and believe that barring refugees is mitigating risk...to which I have two responses
1. I'll choose not to let fear dictate my morality
2. I'd contend that the risk to American lives is made far greater by refusing refugees. it feeds and validates ISIS propaganda and would either directly or indirectly lead to others being radicalized.

Lots of drivel here.

It could be a 3 year vetting process and you still wouldn't know the truth.

Add to that the majority of these people don't want to come here and are simply doing it as a last resort.

Want to help these people out? Get Saudi Arabia and Egypt to accept them. They would rather stay in a like culture, anyway. We can Go ahead and pay for it if that eases that hippie conscience of yours. But don't let them come here. They have no way to meet the most basic immigration standards, so they shouldn't be let in.

To the whole "we are creating terrorist by not letting them come here," you show a stunning naivety toward the problem of radical Islamic terrorism. Whether they come here or not won't have one single thing to do with whether they become a terrorist or not. Their personal beliefs, religion, and personal associations will dictate that evil path. The male shooter in San Bernadino had lived here his entire life. The great American influence didn't stop his radicalization.

On another note, my friend who owns a gun store wants to thank Pres. Obama and the liberal left. He says they have done more to increase gun sales than $50k worth of advertising would have done for his store. Record sales since Pres. Obama's speech. Part of me wonders if colt, glock, and Winchester isn't paying him under the table.

Censored by Laurie · December 8, 2015

Lots of drivel here.
It could be a 3 year vetting process and you still wouldn't know the truth.
Add to that the majority of these people don't want to come here and are simply doing it as a last resort.
Want to help these people out? Get Saudi Arabia and Egypt to accept them. They would rather stay in a like culture, anyway. We can Go ahead and pay for it if that eases that hippie conscience of yours. But don't let them come here. They have no way to meet the most basic immigration standards, so they shouldn't be let in.
To the whole "we are creating terrorist by not letting them come here," you show a stunning naivety toward the problem of radical Islamic terrorism. Whether they come here or not won't have one single thing to do with whether they become a terrorist or not. Their personal beliefs, religion, and personal associations will dictate that evil path. The male shooter in San Bernadino had lived here his entire life. The great American influence didn't stop his radicalization.
On another note, my friend who owns a gun store wants to thank Pres. Obama and the liberal left. He says they have done more to increase gun sales than $50k worth of advertising would have done for his store. Record sales since Pres. Obama's speech. Part of me wonders if colt, glock, and Winchester isn't paying him under the table.

let's hope those sales don't lead to the death of even one American citizen, though. especially since you're more than 100 times more likely to die from gun shot than a terrorist attack.

the bolded sentence is by far my favorite. such insight. please tell me more about the cultures of the world.

and here...you can quote this so you can just cut and paste it for your future responses...it'll save you a lot of time and probably keep the north texas roads a bit safer

"I operate under the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists. I don't like/respect/trust them and would prefer they not be in my country. I place a greater emphasis on creating a false sense of security for myself by scapegoating an entire group of people than I do for any sense of morality."