Terrorists, dogs and guns

[JoeB131]

Funny how the article doesn't start counting until after 9/11. Think you're getting away with something there?

No, 9/11 is just not relevant to the discussion at hand. 9/11 happened because airport security sucked. No one said after 9/11, "Let's round up and deport all the Muslims", which is what trump is saying now. IN fact, to his credit, George W. Bush took PAINS to state that this wasn't a war against Islam, it was a war against a few extremists.

but if you want to add another five years, to include 9/11, we can add 3000 killed on 9/11 and another 150,000 killed by guns.

So that MIGHT get you looking better than dogs, but compared to guns, the numbers still kind of suck. .

 

[JoeB131]

No matter how many times you regurgitate that, stupidbot, it is still a LIE!

then why did it take until 2010 for the SCOTUS to "find" that right? And, heck, even SCOTUS is trying to walk it back now.

Supreme Court refuses to hear case challenging assault weapons ban | News

 

[ChrisL]

Funny how the article doesn't start counting until after 9/11. Think you're getting away with something there?

No, 9/11 is just not relevant to the discussion at hand. 9/11 happened because airport security sucked. No one said after 9/11, "Let's round up and deport all the Muslims", which is what trump is saying now. IN fact, to his credit, George W. Bush took PAINS to state that this wasn't a war against Islam, it was a war against a few extremists.

but if you want to add another five years, to include 9/11, we can add 3000 killed on 9/11 and another 150,000 killed by guns.

So that MIGHT get you looking better than dogs, but compared to guns, the numbers still kind of suck. .

9/11 is ALWAYS relevant when discussing terrorism. It was the biggest and most devastating attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor which was considered "an act of war."

 

[JoeB131]

[

9/11 is ALWAYS relevant when discussing terrorism. It was the biggest and most devastating attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor which was considered "an act of war."

Terrorism isn't an entity, it's a tactic. The problem is we treated a criminal act like an act of war and went to war with people who largely had nothing to do with it, and therefore created more people who use that tactic.

If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be no ISIL. If he had kept the concentration on hunting down AL Qaeda the "War of Terror" would have been over by 2003. Instead he got us emeshed in Afghanistan's 40 year civil war and invaded Iraq for no good reason, and we probably have MORE Muslims extremists now than we did in 2001.

HOWEVER, going back to my discussion, the fact is, in the last decade, you were five times more likely to be killed by a dog than a terrorist, but no one is calling for a War on Dogs!

Except maybe this guy!

 

[ChrisL]

Funny how the article doesn't start counting until after 9/11. Think you're getting away with something there?

No, 9/11 is just not relevant to the discussion at hand. 9/11 happened because airport security sucked. No one said after 9/11, "Let's round up and deport all the Muslims", which is what trump is saying now. IN fact, to his credit, George W. Bush took PAINS to state that this wasn't a war against Islam, it was a war against a few extremists.

but if you want to add another five years, to include 9/11, we can add 3000 killed on 9/11 and another 150,000 killed by guns.

So that MIGHT get you looking better than dogs, but compared to guns, the numbers still kind of suck. .

Yes it is relevant. The biggest terror attack cannot be left out. That is ridiculous.

 

[ChrisL]

[

9/11 is ALWAYS relevant when discussing terrorism. It was the biggest and most devastating attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor which was considered "an act of war."

Terrorism isn't an entity, it's a tactic. The problem is we treated a criminal act like an act of war and went to war with people who largely had nothing to do with it, and therefore created more people who use that tactic.

If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be no ISIL. If he had kept the concentration on hunting down AL Qaeda the "War of Terror" would have been over by 2003. Instead he got us emeshed in Afghanistan's 40 year civil war and invaded Iraq for no good reason, and we probably have MORE Muslims extremists now than we did in 2001.

HOWEVER, going back to my discussion, the fact is, in the last decade, you were five times more likely to be killed by a dog than a terrorist, but no one is calling for a War on Dogs!

Except maybe this guy!

Let's not forget about all of those killed overseas and attacks on our embassies, etc.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Yes it is relevant. The biggest terror attack cannot be left out. That is ridiculous.

No, it really isn't relevant because after 9/11, we took a bunch of actions to make us all safer.

Now, if we DID treat it like we treat the half million or so killed with guns and did nothing because a lobbying group kept us from taking meaningful action, you might have a point. But you realy don't.

Let's not forget about all of those killed overseas and attacks on our embassies, etc.

Again, not relevant to this discussion. you can't send people into a war zone and then complain when some of them are killed. That's why they are called "War Zones".

Within the United States - NOT A WAR ZONE - those scary Muslims (mostly Americans upset about what we are doing in those war zones) have managed to kill LESS than people than are killed by Dogs.

But let's humor you for a minute. Let's include EVERY American killed by a Muslim since 2001 and compare it to AMericans killed by gun owners.

So -

Random Acts of Muslim Terror - 45
9/11 2977
Iraq War 4491
Afghan War 2366
BENGAZIIIIIIII!!!!!! 4

TOTAL - 9903

And I'm being really generous here because not every fatality in Iraq and Afghanistan was a combat fatality. A lot of them were accidents.

Okay, now, number of people killed by guns in 2013- Just 2013 mind you, NOT every year between 2001 and 2013.

You had 33,636 gun deaths, including 11,208 homicides.

So just cherr picking ONE YEAR and just limiting it to ONE STAT, guns kill more Americans than Muslims have since 9/11.

What the Muslims need is a National Muslim Association to point out that they have a first Amendment Right to believe in Allah. Then we wouldn't do anything about them, either.

Yes, I am openly mocking your stupidity now.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Not again. Lol. What else could we compare? How many gnats have died in the last 15 years.

Humans are no more than gnats as far as you're concerned?

The comparison of humans killed by dogs or terrorists is about as important as a gnat.