Orlando Terrorist Attack

[All About UNT]

3 hours ago, UNT90 said:

The fact that the shooter may be a closet gay is exactly why ISIS wouldn't claim responsibility if they didn't have a hand in it (even if that hand is simply Internet and email contact with the murderer encouraging the attack). Too many ways to prove they are lying, and they know this. 

When has ISIS ever claimed responsibility for something they weren't responsible for? I believe the answer is they haven't. Also, they claimed responsibility within hours of the attack when a lot wasn't known. If they were lying, this is a pretty stupid thing to do. 

What is very apparent here is that you are overestimating both the operational capabilities and reaching abilities of Isis. From an organizational standpoint these guys are no better structured than the Thugee Cult of India at this point. Just because some crazy out there says he is affiliated with them doesn't mean that they even had him on their radar. As the SAA, the Kurds and the Iraqi Army and militias continue to squeeze what territorial remains that Isis has you are seeing them become more and more desperate. Desperate in a sense that if some guy just shot up a whole bunch of Americans and claims to be affiliated with Isis they will agree just for any type of publicity that they are winning on some front. The fact that there's a far deeper story about this guy's own personal confrontations and demons was apparently not known by ISIS. I know that this much is clear as day

[UNT90]

21 minutes ago, All About UNT said:

What is very apparent here is that you are overestimating both the operational capabilities and reaching abilities of Isis. From an organizational standpoint these guys are known better structured than the Thugee Cult of India at this point. Just because some crazy out there says he is affiliated with them doesn't mean that they even had him on their radar. As the SAA, the Kurds and the Iraqi Army and militias continue to squeeze what territorial remains that Isis has you are seeing them become more and more desperate. Desperate in a sense that if some guy just shot up a whole bunch of Americans and claims to be affiliated with Isis they will agree just for any type of publicity that they are winning on some front. The fact that there's a far deeper story about this guy's own personal confrontations and demons was apparently not known by ISIS. I know that this much is clear as day

Except ISIS has never done that before. Is there any other example of them taking credit for an attack they weren't involved in?

And yes, Internet contact, encouragement, knowledge, and intelligence support is involvement in the attack, TFLF. It's been known for a long time that ISIS will use the Internet to radicalize American   Muslims. That isn't a new tactic.

[UNT Five&Dime]

It's like when an Athletic Director gets "fired" and someone who flew a banner one Thursday afternoon 6 months before takes credit, even though he really had nothing to do with it. That's what ISIS is doing here.

[Army of Dad]

39 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

I don't think the president had any idea about ISIS and this guy.  In fact, I don't think the guy knew he was ISIS until he got on the phone and started spouting off to the police.

My problem isn't with Obama, anymore than I had a problem with Bush in fighting terrorism or Clinton, or Bush I, or Reagan.  The problem is, the terrorist are constantly evolving.  Each president has faced an evolving part of it. 

Terrorists will now accept all applicants, if you will, without having to have them fly to Afghanistan or Syria or whatever godforsaken sh*thole country to be "trained" face-to-face.  It's good enough that the guy is in Belgium or France or England or Florida - or wherever - and willing to kill in the name of their twisted version of jihad.

My only problem here is, the FBI did suspect the guy, actively interviewed him, but he somehow slipped through. 

The question then is not, how much is this president doing or that president.  The question is, are the lawmakers at the national level, and the agencies they fund, accepting the new reality of the sort of rent-a-terrorist scheme which ISIS now employs. 

I don't think they are.  And, to me, that's not all on a president.  A president can only do so much with information he is getting from the agencies.  And, the agencies can only do what the current laws allow them to do.

This guy was an American citizen.  There was a certain point at which the FBI had to cut off the investigation.  Whatever law that is surely needs to be changed. 

But, you can't blame Obama...or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush I, or Reagan...for that.  It's up the agencies to make known to the legislature what they need on the ground for their investigations.  Then, for the legislature to take care of the laws in order to give the agencies the tools it needs to shut down these potential homegrown rent-a-terrorists.

 

Not so fast. It's very possible he wasn't a credible threat when the FBI looked into him and only later became a threat.

We should not punish citizens that haven't committed a crime and should not begin doing so.

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

8 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Except ISIS has never done that before. Is there any other example of them taking credit for an attack they weren't involved in?

And yes, Internet contact, encouragement, knowledge, and intelligence support is involvement in the attack, TFLF. It's been known for a long time that ISIS will use the Internet to radicalize American   Muslims. That isn't a new tactic.

That wasn't my point.  The point is that the FBI knew about those things, but had to let him to because they had nothing concrete to keep the investigation alive.

So, there, the law needs to change, giving more power to the FBI. 

I love this because, what 90 is essentially saying - which he wouldn't normally say is, give more power to government agencies!

[Army of Dad]

7 minutes ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

It's like when an Athletic Director gets "fired" and someone who flew a banner one Thursday afternoon 6 months before takes credit, even though he really had nothing to do with it. That's what ISIS is doing here.

Why are you torturing Analogy? 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Army of Dad

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

3 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

Not so fast. It's very possible he wasn't a credible threat when the FBI looked into him and only later became a threat.

We should not punish citizens that haven't committed a crime and should not begin doing so.

I agree with you.  So, you are back at square one:  at what point do you shut down the investigations when you know there is something there, but:
(1) not enough yet to act...within current law,
(2) you can't find what you need under the current law to continue.

My point was, you can hardly blame a president for the current law and how the agencies must apply them.  That is on the agencies and legislature to figure out. 

Edited June 14, 2016 by MeanGreenMailbox

[UNT90]

49 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

That wasn't my point.  The point is that the FBI knew about those things, but had to let him to because they had nothing concrete to keep the investigation alive.

So, there, the law needs to change, giving more power to the FBI. 

I love this because, what 90 is essentially saying - which he wouldn't normally say is, give more power to government agencies!

Government's main function is to protect it's citizens. Problem is liberals who want money taken from that very important function and applied to silly social programs that solve nothing (Obamacare, anyone?), which limits the federal government's ability to do their most important function: Protect their citizens.

But as a very well known conservative poster on this sight, Tge Fake Lonnie Finch (AKA Mailbox) knows this to be true.

Troll trolling.

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

I'm not trolling.  You really can't have it both ways.

The outcome of elections decides how much social spending there will be.  That is a different subject than national security.  There can be a great deal of difference of opinion about how much money needs to be spent (or, wasted, depending on your viewpoint) for social programs.  But, all sides agree that national security is important.

It doesn't take a whole lot of money for the agencies and legislatures to get together and decided at what point, and for how long, an American citizen can be held for potential terrorist actions.

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by MeanGreenMailbox

[Censored by Laurie]

And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.

Groups like ISIL and Al Qaida want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West. They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion of Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions.

They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion-plus people, that they speak for Islam. That’s their propaganda, that’s how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims as a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with the entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists’ work for them.

Now, up until this point, this argument of labels has mostly just been partisan rhetoric, and sadly, we have all become accustomed to that kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist groups.

That kind of yapping has not prevented folks across the government from doing their jobs, from sacrificing and working really hard to protect the American people.

But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mind set and this kind of thinking can be. We are starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we are fighting, where this can lead us.

We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States to bar all Muslims from immigrating into America. And you hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests entire religious communities are complacent in violence.

Where does this stop? The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer — they were all U.S. citizens. Are we going to start treating all Muslim-Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminate them, because of their faith?

We heard these suggestions during the course of this campaign. Do Republican officials actually agree with this?

Because that’s not the America we want. It does not reflect our Democratic ideals. It won’t make us more safe, it will make us less safe, fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims, making Muslims in this country and around the world feel like, no matter what they do, they’re going to be under suspicion and under attack.

It makes Muslim-Americans feel like their government is betraying them. It betrays the very values America stands for.

We have gone through moments in our history before when we acted out of fear, and we came to regret it. We have seen our government mistreat our fellow citizens, and it has been a shameful part of our history.

[foutsrouts]

25 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.

Groups like ISIL and Al Qaida want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West. They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion of Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions.

They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion-plus people, that they speak for Islam. That’s their propaganda, that’s how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims as a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with the entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists’ work for them.

Now, up until this point, this argument of labels has mostly just been partisan rhetoric, and sadly, we have all become accustomed to that kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist groups.

That kind of yapping has not prevented folks across the government from doing their jobs, from sacrificing and working really hard to protect the American people.

But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mind set and this kind of thinking can be. We are starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we are fighting, where this can lead us.

We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States to bar all Muslims from immigrating into America. And you hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests entire religious communities are complacent in violence.

Where does this stop? The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer — they were all U.S. citizens. Are we going to start treating all Muslim-Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminate them, because of their faith?

We heard these suggestions during the course of this campaign. Do Republican officials actually agree with this?

Because that’s not the America we want. It does not reflect our Democratic ideals. It won’t make us more safe, it will make us less safe, fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims, making Muslims in this country and around the world feel like, no matter what they do, they’re going to be under suspicion and under attack.

It makes Muslim-Americans feel like their government is betraying them. It betrays the very values America stands for.

We have gone through moments in our history before when we acted out of fear, and we came to regret it. We have seen our government mistreat our fellow citizens, and it has been a shameful part of our history.

I agree with the general tone of your post, in that Trump's rhetoric is ridiculous as usual and would alienate a lot of decent people. Trump just tends to speak radically with no moderation. On the other hand, I would probably be for serious restrictions on those entering our country from countries currently in upheaval (subjective), and I suspect that the vast majority of Americans will be also as these attacks continue.

Sure it's discriminatory, and I realize that it would be an extremely difficult vetting process, and that recent attacks have been homegrown, but those from designated countries without strong family ties or business purpose should probably be restricted for the time being IMO. Particularly those without a lengthy travel history to the US.

In other words, lay off granting US Visa and vacation privileges to those from listed countries. I know we already do this to a certain extent, but we need to do a better job of it. Age and sex restrictions would be tough to lay down (yes, I remember San Bernadino), but it could eventually come to that.

Btw, we clearly need to escalate the war against ISIL in a big way. The longer this "war" drags on, the more entrenched the radicalization is going to become worldwide. Obama needs to get on his horse and charge, instead of just pussyfooting around on the edges. Sadly, we may have no other choice.

[UNT90]

5 hours ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

It's like when an Athletic Director gets "fired" and someone who flew a banner one Thursday afternoon 6 months before takes credit, even though he really had nothing to do with it. That's what ISIS is doing here.

Hey, banner is back! 

And I never took credit, sour puss hater. 

You don't get a lot of things on this particular issue.

3 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.

Groups like ISIL and Al Qaida want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West. They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion of Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions.

They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion-plus people, that they speak for Islam. That’s their propaganda, that’s how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims as a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with the entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists’ work for them.

Now, up until this point, this argument of labels has mostly just been partisan rhetoric, and sadly, we have all become accustomed to that kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist groups.

That kind of yapping has not prevented folks across the government from doing their jobs, from sacrificing and working really hard to protect the American people.

But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mind set and this kind of thinking can be. We are starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we are fighting, where this can lead us.

We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States to bar all Muslims from immigrating into America. And you hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests entire religious communities are complacent in violence.

Where does this stop? The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer — they were all U.S. citizens. Are we going to start treating all Muslim-Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminate them, because of their faith?

We heard these suggestions during the course of this campaign. Do Republican officials actually agree with this?

Because that’s not the America we want. It does not reflect our Democratic ideals. It won’t make us more safe, it will make us less safe, fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims, making Muslims in this country and around the world feel like, no matter what they do, they’re going to be under suspicion and under attack.

It makes Muslim-Americans feel like their government is betraying them. It betrays the very values America stands for.

We have gone through moments in our history before when we acted out of fear, and we came to regret it. We have seen our government mistreat our fellow citizens, and it has been a shameful part of our history.

Well, speaking of partisan rhetoric, you just intentionally misquoted what Trump proposes. Way to go, hippy compound guy. 

Trump proposes banning entry to Muslims who come from unfriendly Muslim countries who have refused to address radical Islamist, not all Muslims. 

And you try to pretend to be so non-partisan in this post. Lol.

 

[Censored by Laurie]

3 hours ago, foutsrouts said:

I agree with the general tone of your post, in that Trump's rhetoric is ridiculous as usual and would alienate a lot of decent people. Trump just tends to speak radically with no moderation. On the other hand, I would probably be for serious restrictions on those entering our country from countries currently in upheaval (subjective), and I suspect that the vast majority of Americans will be also as these attacks continue.

Sure it's discriminatory, and I realize that it would be an extremely difficult vetting process, and that recent attacks have been homegrown, but those from designated countries without strong family ties or business purpose should probably be restricted for the time being IMO. Particularly those without a lengthy travel history to the US.

In other words, lay off granting US Visa and vacation privileges to those from listed countries. I know we already do this to a certain extent, but we need to do a better job of it. Age and sex restrictions would be tough to lay down (yes, I remember San Bernadino), but it could eventually come to that.

Btw, we clearly need to escalate the war against ISIL in a big way. The longer this "war" drags on, the more entrenched the radicalization is going to become worldwide. Obama needs to get on his horse and charge, instead of just pussyfooting around on the edges. Sadly, we may have no other choice.

first of all, those were Obama's words today, not mine.

more to the point...my whole view on how we approach this centers around the one major theme of validation. ISIS views itself as the voice of Islam and wants to engage in a war on both political and religious levels...it fuels itself and it's propaganda machine with the narrative that the US and Western nations, generally with judeo-christian beliefs, hate Islam and want it eradicated. when you engage on that level, you validate their message and create new candidates for recruitment and sympathizers

this murderer was an american citizen. barring entry would've had zero-effect.

the anti-muslim, nationalistic rhetoric that has been intensifying over the last year or so, on the other hand, could well have been another of many triggers in a very disturbed man's mind.

I agree that we need to strengthen our security measures, vetting processes and communication with foreign intelligence services...but the idea of banning entry based solely on the fact a person's passport says Syria is antithetical to every thing this country was founded upon.

and right now, to me, the risk of some covert ISIS agent slipping through our borders seems less likely and far less dangerous than continuing to rhetoric that tells Muslims they're not welcome...the effect this could have on impressionable, angry individuals seems like a far bigger risk. we're breeding our own discontent

[UNT90]

And so it begins. Look over here, folks! Don't look at the real problem:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/14/dem-rep-orlando-shooting-is-not-about-isis-video/

unbelievable.

And I told you so. The left will whore the murder of 49 Americans to fight some stupid, unwinable gun control fight.  How is Chicago working out for you, Dems? Murder capital of America.

And now the NYT is calling for the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Like I told you, democrats are going to do anything to deny radical Islamist terrorism and shamefully try to turn it into a social issue. It isn't. 

They want to kill us. Should we just keep taking it?

 

Edited June 15, 2016 by UNT90

[UNT90]

39 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

first of all, those were Obama's words today, not mine.

more to the point...my whole view on how we approach this centers around the one major theme of validation. ISIS views itself as the voice of Islam and wants to engage in a war on both political and religious levels...it fuels itself and it's propaganda machine with the narrative that the US and Western nations, generally with judeo-christian beliefs, hate Islam and want it eradicated. when you engage on that level, you validate their message and create new candidates for recruitment and sympathizers

this murderer was an american citizen. barring entry would've had zero-effect.

the anti-muslim, nationalistic rhetoric that has been intensifying over the last year or so, on the other hand, could well have been another of many triggers in a very disturbed man's mind.

I agree that we need to strengthen our security measures, vetting processes and communication with foreign intelligence services...but the idea of banning entry based solely on the fact a person's passport says Syria is antithetical to every thing this country was founded upon.

and right now, to me, the risk of some covert ISIS agent slipping through our borders seems less likely and far less dangerous than continuing to rhetoric that tells Muslims they're not welcome...the effect this could have on impressionable, angry individuals seems like a far bigger risk. we're breeding our own discontent

Why the F is Barak Obama incorrectly commenting on Donald Trump? 49 people are dead, and he is campaigning!?

This President doesn't know how to do anything but campaign. He will be remembered as one of the worst Presidents in US history. 

[FirefightnRick]

53 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Why the F is Barak Obama incorrectly commenting on Donald Trump? 49 people are dead, and he is campaigning!?

This President doesn't know how to do anything but campaign. He will be remembered as one of the worst Presidents in US history. 

And it's easy for him to take the stance he does about our enemies and gun bans, considering he nor his family will ever go anywhere the rest of their lives without having the locations swept, cleared and defended by highly trained armed agents.

 

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

"Want To Bury Jihad? Start By Burying Political Correctness".

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/want-to-bury-jihad-start-by-burying-political-correctness

Quote

As Dr. Walid Phares said,

As someone who studied the jihadist movement for a quarter of a century on three continents, I find the questions indicate a greater drama — how can societies targeted for a systematic and global warfare by terrorist forces operating in the open for at least two decades be asking questions about their identification?

Instead, the Americans, British and Spanish should ask how the jihadists were able to strike successfully, how long they have been able to infiltrate democratic societies and who is helping them do it.

The real question is this — why are most British citizens, let alone Europeans and Westerners, lost about who the enemy is? How come they aren't able to see clearly, and who is blurring their vision and how?

 

 

 

Rick

Edited June 15, 2016 by FirefightnRick

[foutsrouts]

2 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

first of all, those were Obama's words today, not mine.

more to the point...my whole view on how we approach this centers around the one major theme of validation. ISIS views itself as the voice of Islam and wants to engage in a war on both political and religious levels...it fuels itself and it's propaganda machine with the narrative that the US and Western nations, generally with judeo-christian beliefs, hate Islam and want it eradicated. when you engage on that level, you validate their message and create new candidates for recruitment and sympathizers

this murderer was an american citizen. barring entry would've had zero-effect.

the anti-muslim, nationalistic rhetoric that has been intensifying over the last year or so, on the other hand, could well have been another of many triggers in a very disturbed man's mind.

I agree that we need to strengthen our security measures, vetting processes and communication with foreign intelligence services...but the idea of banning entry based solely on the fact a person's passport says Syria is antithetical to every thing this country was founded upon.

and right now, to me, the risk of some covert ISIS agent slipping through our borders seems less likely and far less dangerous than continuing to rhetoric that tells Muslims they're not welcome...the effect this could have on impressionable, angry individuals seems like a far bigger risk. we're breeding our own discontent

For one thing, this ain't 1776 where it took months to get here and radical Islamic terrorism outside of the Middle East was negligible at best. An incredibly mobile and changing world needs mobile rules of immigration based upon current threats.  

[UNT90]

20 hours ago, All About UNT said:

What is very apparent here is that you are overestimating both the operational capabilities and reaching abilities of Isis. From an organizational standpoint these guys are no better structured than the Thugee Cult of India at this point. Just because some crazy out there says he is affiliated with them doesn't mean that they even had him on their radar. As the SAA, the Kurds and the Iraqi Army and militias continue to squeeze what territorial remains that Isis has you are seeing them become more and more desperate. Desperate in a sense that if some guy just shot up a whole bunch of Americans and claims to be affiliated with Isis they will agree just for any type of publicity that they are winning on some front. The fact that there's a far deeper story about this guy's own personal confrontations and demons was apparently not known by ISIS. I know that this much is clear as day

As clear as day? Really? I think that's what you want to believe. The only thing we know clear as day right now is that the murderer swore allegiance to the leader of ISIS by name in a recorded phone call to the police. We know that ISIS, who doesn't historically claim responsibility for things they aren't responsible for, claimed responsibility for this attack. And they claimed responsibility about 8 hours after the attack when there were still A LOT of unknowns. 

You don't want this to be true, I get it, but there isn't a shread of evidence out there to say that this isn't exactly what the shooter and the terrorist state said it was.

And that scares the hell out of a lot of you.

Edited June 15, 2016 by UNT90

[LongJim]

I thought this was a thought provoking blog post.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/great-question-14575.html

 

[Censored by Laurie]

8 hours ago, foutsrouts said:

For one thing, this ain't 1776 where it took months to get here and radical Islamic terrorism outside of the Middle East was negligible at best. An incredibly mobile and changing world needs mobile rules of immigration based upon current threats.  

would closed borders legitimately make you feel safer? why? 

for me, the bans would ostensibly serve as a cultural opiate. perhaps it would make you feel safer for a time, but would ultimately create more risk and would deteriorate the pillars and precepts of our nation. 

not Orlando, not San Bernadino, not Ft. Hood...not Newtown, not Charleston, not Aurora, not Portland, not Columbine...hell, not UT 1966...closed borders wouldn't have done a damn thing. 

[Army of Dad]

20 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

would closed borders legitimately make you feel safer? why? 

for me, the bans would ostensibly serve as a cultural opiate. perhaps it would make you feel safer for a time, but would ultimately create more risk and would deteriorate the pillars and precepts of our nation. 

not Orlando, not San Bernadino, not Ft. Hood...not Newtown, not Charleston, not Aurora, not Portland, not Columbine...hell, not UT 1966...closed borders wouldn't have done a damn thing. 

So glad we agree that gun bans are only effective way in making some people feel safer.

[Censored by Laurie]

1 minute ago, Army of Dad said:

So glad we agree that gun bans are only effective way in making some people feel safer.

sure. I've never lobbied for gun bans. I've been supportive of limitations...like how people on the terror watch-list probably shouldn't have access to guns. much like they probably shouldn't be granted access to our country. 

[Army of Dad]

37 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

sure. I've never lobbied for gun bans. I've been supportive of limitations...like how people on the terror watch-list probably shouldn't have access to guns. much like they probably shouldn't be granted access to our country. 

Terror watch list is a sticky problem though. Citizens can be placed on it with little to no recourse available to the citizen for removal. There have been several famous instances of legislators being on the list in error. They had the pull to get themselves removed from the list without too much trouble, but I doubt regular folks would be able to get the error addressed so easily.

Also of great concern is that would be depriving a citizen of their civil rights without the due process enshrined in the Constitution.

[UNT90]

1 hour ago, Army of Dad said:

So glad we agree that gun bans are only effective way in making some people feel safer.

And it's definitely all about feeling with his crowd. Very little about thinking. 

Chicago has the toughest gun laws in America and is handgun murder central.

Tell me, is that ok because Chocagoans "feel safer?"  

1 hour ago, LongJim said:

I thought this was a thought provoking blog post.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/great-question-14575.html

 

Excellent post.

Edited June 15, 2016 by UNT90