Quote (Scaly @ Nov 10 2017 12:10pm)
I'm not saying that her argument is right. I'm just saying it isn't quite as retarded as it is portrayed by cutting out the body of the segment.
Though yea... strict gun laws would have pretty significant effects on domestic terrorism.
Think about it - we in the UK have suffered the 7/7 bombings and have had various acts of terror committed since 9/11 but not one mass shooting. We've had knife attacks, bombs, failed bombs and vehicle attacks. Our last mass shooting was by some random chap who just lost it, not a terrorist, and that was carried out with a shotgun and a hunting rifle. Imagine if he had access to an AR-15? Would have been Las Vegas levels of horror.
It's not like we aren't a target for terror attacks. It's just much harder to get the tools needed to cause mass casualties here in the UK. In the US they can just pop down Walmart and buy all you need to kill as many people as they can before SWAT takes them down.
you were doing ok until u got to the bold. lol
in all honesty i'm terrified at the possibilities of us forcing terrorist organizations to achieve their goals by adapting to overcome any obstacles we put in their way. I know this will sound callous, o well, but terrorist attacks aren't harmful in an existential way. They are flies on a horses back, the bites sting and we carry on. Now what happens if say ISIS poisons a water supply. Moves to arson. Attacks a grocery store. Kills all the animals at a zoo. etc.
If i was ISIS i wouldn't want people to strictly fear for this lives, i'd want them to be scared from the time they wake up to the time they sleep. i'd want each glass of water to scare them. each trip to pick up food to scare them etc. right now they aren't harmful, force them to innovate and we might regret it. Not only from the new loss of lives, but also from the hysteria that would follow and the wars that we'd start with public backing to continue the process.
ok tinfoil hat off now...