imho, the core stat we should look at are gun deaths minus suicides and deaths caused by inter-gang violence.





i was talking about the texas shooter, not the las vegas one. the texas shooter was dishonorably discharged from the military and in a mental hospital. therefore, he should have been blacklisted from obtaining guns legally according to applicable law.

it would of course be possible for isis or al quaeda to get someone in. now, tell me, how many islamistic terrorist attacks have been conducted since 9/11 in which the terrorist was specifically smuggled into the country to carry out his attack? can you name even one?
by contrast, how many terrorist attacks have there been that were carried out by muslims who entered the country legally or were even born here? off the top of my head, there is the bombing of the boston marathon, the orlando pulse club attack, the shooting in fort hood in 2009, the san bernardino attack and last week's new york truck attack.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 9 2017 01:02pm

this is an argument the NRA has set up as a win-win for them. Steering the conversation towards an individual event is illogical, u just have to be smart enough to realize it.

Now if you want to ask, "what's the likelihood that X law would have stopped Y aspect of Z event" that's an intelligent approach. All too often however its "would X stop Z, if not we shouldn't to X" its a 2 dimensional approach to a 3 dimensional problem.



i should have inb4'd this response before you made it. water follows the path of least resistance. while we still have lenient immigration policies they won't need to smuggle someone in. the more intelligent question is, "how would X immigration policy force Y group to evolve in how they get people here. And how difficult would the next easiest method be for them to complete." as we have mexicans freely walking across the border i'd say that question answers itself.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 9 2017 01:03pm

Some cuckery about the NRA is not going to fly here. Gun rights are wildly popular in America and its not some evil organization pulling the strings.

when democrats stand on the graves of the dead to push for gun control in response to specific attacks, its pretty damn relevant and normal for the attack at hand to be used as a point of reference in the debate.

What you call an 'intelligent approach' is basically the same as what we are talking about that you decry as NRA sheep herding.
When they say would x have stopped this attack, the obvious implication is whether it would have addressed and prevented the aspects of the attack.
often the answer is no. the answer of whether it would significantly reduce overall crime is also often no.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 9 2017 01:22pm

the islamistic attacks I listed were all conducted by perpetrators who got radicalized after coming into the USA. they were not pre-selected attackers deliberately sent to the USA on the "path of least resistance". they were muslims who failed to integrate into the western culture and society.

I'll rephrase my question: can you name even a single islamistic terrorist attack conducted after 9/11 where the attacker came to into the country specifically to carry out his attack, as opposed to "home-grown islamistic terrorism"?



see... exactly this is the reason why we need more border control: it is far too easy for any kind of criminal or poverty immigrant to enter the country.

how convenient that most of the right-wing, oh-so-ultra-conservative, gun fanatics are also for tigher borders and therefore have a consistent point of view on the whole issue.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 9 2017 01:24pm

1. i already stated that i dont support much gun control, if you need me to punch the democrats equally i can do that for you though. id hate for you to feel ganged up on.

2. the obvious implication is obvious to smart people, lots of people, most people, are stupid. most people seek to simplify complex situations to go on about their day. this is sheep behavior.

3. i agree about what often is the answer, as i said i dont support the laws. i'm speaking about responding to suggested laws in an intelligent manner, rather than a lazy manner, which i see too often.

4. i already admitted my post was ranty and not explicitly pointed at anyone.



you got tripped up on the word "path". i wasn't using that phrase to exclusively mean immigration, simply that to achieve a goal an organization takes the easiest method to do it. In this case radicalizing Muslims on US soil is the path of least resistance. if you were to make integration more effective they'd ship in pre-radicalized people. if you ban all arabs they'll radicalize white boys just like the ones they lure to Syria to join ISIS. etc.

the same applies on borders. seal it up and increase tunnels, false bottoms of trucks, shipping containers at ports, fishing boats transporting them, wall climbers, etc. Nothing is being done to address the underlying issues at play.

being a decent and intellectual person is too much to ask, i know.
sticks in mud and whatnot.


Pretty sure the average person does not think time travel is involved when people talk about would a gun control measure have prevented a certain attack.
lots of people have poor reasons for believing something sure.. it doesn't make poisoning an argument with tangents about the NRA legitimate.
asking and evaluating whether a proposed solution would have prevented the attacks is valid.



you have attacked and mocked a legitimate question on false and poisoning grounds, as we have pointed out, instead of attacking the poor and lazy 'arguments' of the gun grabbers who you supposedly disagree with.

i mean, historically i've been unilaterally on the side of the gun owner in these debates. and that's the entire premise of my gripe. i want to rid the poor arguments from my side to more effectively shut down democrats, i thought that much was clear. I'm an NRA member, have a large stake in the gun business, hate over reactionary gun grabbers, and i own more guns than anyone i've ever met here. I simply detest bad arguments.

i'm getting the feeling that you think my posts have applied to you, if anything you usually over-analyze and pull apart policy proposals rather than attacking them lazily. i'm not sure what your personal contention is here? is it salt?

it is possible to be an NRA supporter and be critical of some of the more transparent sheep herding they do. a PAC that large with that much money out there is neither good nor bad, but some things they do are more explicitly good or bad.

thats fine in theory, in practice you just aren't attacking questions and tactics that are actually invalid.


My contention is you have poor arguments for mocking and attacking gun rights advocates while adopting the vacuous rhetoric of the left, and I threw in a reference to our previous conversation in response to your dig about needing to attack democrats and ganging up.



Whether an argument is valid or not is not dependent on whether the NRA is pushing it or not.
You used the words stupid, foolish, and ~NRA..sheep to describe the use of a valid point.

On the contrary of the NRA using this to deflect from TOTAL deaths, the left has to use high profile shootings to drum up support for gun control because total gun homicides have already gone down considerably.

Im still confused on your contention, so lets dial all the way back to the start.

My issue is specifically with people who say "would X have stopped Y event", knowing it would not have, and then using this, and this alone, in a lazy manner, to argue against X. Without delving into specifics at all.

That would be a contention I have with Right winged individuals.

My unsaid issue, although highly related, is with left winged people who eat up left wing propaganda and put forward policy proposals in an equally lazy manner without stopping to work logically through implications and exceptions to their policies that would prevent their effectiveness.

and again, i dont find you to be either of these groups. Nor even igohard, he was just close enough for me to indulge myself with a rant.


so, given all that do u still have an issue cammy?

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 9 2017 02:47pm

my issue was with what you said originally and how you said it, not a revised opposition to someone theoretically and exclusively using something in a lazy manner.
If you are no longer calling it stupid, illogical and foolish to bring up 'would it have stopped it' then thats fine and we are not arguing over much.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 9 2017 03:27pm