Hate him or not, no terrorist attacks on US soil since his inaguration

[UCONN_Husky]

Trump's "bigoted" ways seem to have worked thus far.

Discuss!

[ShockTalk]

Not sure he has anything to do with it.

[jdshock]

We literally just had one.

[UCONN_Husky]

We literally just had one.

Where?

[jdshock]

Where?

I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Charlottesville. Sessions called it terrorism. It was done with the same weapon as the terrorist attack in Barcelona this morning.

Why wouldn't it be called terrorism?

[CBB_Fan]

Trump's "bigoted" ways seem to have worked thus far.

Discuss!

January 31st: Shooting (Muslim)
February 23rd: Shooting (Rightwing)
March 25th: Stabbing (White supremacist)
April 13-18th, Fresno: Shooting (Anti-white)
June 14th, Alexandria: Shooting (Leftwing)
June 21st, Flint: Stabbing (Muslim)
July 10th, Tulsa: Bombing (Lone Wolf)
August 5th, Bloomington: Bombing (Rightwing)
August 12th, Charlottesville: Vehicular Attack (Rightwing)

I wouldn't call 9 terrorist incidents in 7 months "working." Especially considering the disturbing trend of a rise in racial and partisan terrorism, which is arguably more likely to affect the average American.

[MoValley John]

Once again I will reiterate, we need to ban all automobiles! If this ban saves just one life, it will have been worth it!

[jdshock]

Once again I will reiterate, we need to ban all automobiles! If this ban saves just one life, it will have been worth it!

MVJ, I truly find your posts like this deeply offensive. As I always say when you do this: (1) if you truly believe that this is a logical argument you're making, then every single death from a firearm supports a ban of fire arms. If you don't believe you're making a logical argument, you're just trolling after a tragedy; and (2) one thing being bad doesn't mean another thing isn't bad. If a hand grenade kills someone, it doesn't mean that uranium bombs are automatically good to go.

This is obviously not to mention at all the discussion of utility we've had before regarding cars vs guns.

[MoValley John]

MVJ, I truly find your posts like this deeply offensive. As I always say when you do this: (1) if you truly believe that this is a logical argument you're making, then every single death from a firearm supports a ban of fire arms. If you don't believe you're making a logical argument, you're just trolling after a tragedy; and (2) one thing being bad doesn't mean another thing isn't bad. If a hand grenade kills someone, it doesn't mean that uranium bombs are automatically good to go.

This is obviously not to mention at all the discussion of utility we've had before regarding cars vs guns.

Sorry you're offended. Not sorry for the post.

The post points out the illogical nature of the argument, whether it be firearms, cars, trucks, or lawn fertizer.

You offend far too easily.

[MoValley John]

I suppose I could insert a ban on vans, they used those in Italy.

[jdshock]

The post points out the illogical nature of the argument, whether it be firearms, cars, trucks, or lawn fertizer.

Except it doesn't...
(1) one bad things doesn't mean another thing isn't bad. and
(2) it doesn't address the utility of a car vs utility of a firearm.

It literally has nothing to do with anything other than your attempt to troll people.

[Kung Wu]

Especially considering the disturbing trend of a rise in racial and partisan terrorism, which is arguably more likely to affect the average American.

Just wondering out loud ... regarding "partisan" terrorism, which side generally foments partisan terrorist activity, the winners or the losers of an election?

[MoValley John]

Except it doesn't...
(1) one bad things doesn't mean another thing isn't bad. and
(2) it doesn't address the utility of a car vs utility of a firearm.

It literally has nothing to do with anything other than your attempt to troll people.

It really does. People use cars to intentionally maim and kill others. They use cars on terror attacks, they use them to kill spouses, ex boyfriends, on and on. People do the same with guns.

Cars are used and people are accidentally killed, same with guns. People use cars to commit suicide, guns as well. There are safe drivers and careless drivers. There are safe hun owners and careless gun owners.

The two correlate much better than you would think. You shouldn't drive a car after drinkinh, and you shouldn't handle a gun after drinking, either..

The more I think about it, the stronger I think we need a car ban. Unless......

[wufan]

Except it doesn't...
(1) one bad things doesn't mean another thing isn't bad. and
(2) it doesn't address the utility of a car vs utility of a firearm.

It literally has nothing to do with anything other than your attempt to troll people.

Not that you are arguing to ban assault rifles in this thread, but...

I actually don't think (though I could be wrong) that it is a logical fallacy to make this equivalence. The likelihood of owning a gun and owning a car is nearly identical (slightly more guns than cars) and the likelihood of being killed by a car is nearly identical to being killed by a gun (slightly more likely to be killed by a car). Possibly a false equivalency could be drawn between the number of homicides associated with cars (about 400 per year) vs the number of homicides by gun, about 10000 per year. Car is still the weapon of choice for suicide, (20000 vs 15000) and accidental death from vehicle is, of course, much, much higher.

The really interesting statistic to me is that 400 vehicular homicides occur annually whereas 250 assault rifle homicides occur annually. The purpose for pointing out cars vs guns is that assault rifles (targeted bans) aren't very dangerous via terrorists or via gun owners when compared to other types of homicides. A ban on these weapons doesn't make sense if the purpose of a ba is to save lives. It appears to me that should anyone argue for an assault rifle ban, they are making an argument via an appeal to emotion. It's not a good argument to suggest an assault rifle ban in the name of saving lives.

[jdshock]

A ban on these weapons doesn't make sense if the purpose of a ba is to save lives. It appears to me that should anyone argue for an assault rifle ban, they are making an argument via an appeal to emotion. It's not a good argument to suggest an assault rifle ban in the name of saving lives.

MVJ responding to every terrorist is event with "we should ban X" as if that were all the nuance I've ever put forth in my argument suggests every proponent of gun control is an imbecile. Suggesting the "if it saved one life it'd be worth it" framework suggests I'm an imbecile.

My argument on the topic has always been utility vs cost. I've always said there'd be a huge cost in losing cars, knives, whatever. I've always said assault rifles have little utility so the cost would be small even if the benefit is small.

And your suggestion that I've made it about emotion is equally dishonest to MVJs suggestion.

But yeah, I'm done with this thread. It was started in the same week as a terrorist attack perpetrated by a bunch of nazis to erroneously gloat that Trump has done a great job preventing terrorist attacks. And it's somehow gone downhill from there.