Tweet
You can be on whatever side you choose to be on the Syrian refugee issue, but please stop using the term, "highly vetted." That's just silly. Here on US hwy 54, drivers (illegal immigrants?) are stopped all the time, with no insurance, no driver's license and no identification. Nobody can ascertain their background, their origin or even their real name. Come on..........
-
-
You know it's amazing that you sound just like a frightened liberal when you talk like that.Originally posted by MoValley John View Post
The NRA would like for us to sell guns to any nut. No paperwork needed!
The result is that we have monthly mass shootings now.
And crazy people can still buy guns because the NRA wants them to.
What's the difference between the kid at Sandy Hook, who slaughtered 20 students and a little old lady Muslim with an explosive vest?
The NRA.
When the NRA starts telling us that Syrian refugees with green cards can't buy guns and nuts can't buy guns, perhaps I will be more than a little willing to accept the premise that if we let in one terrorist it will be "one too many".Comment
-
-
Does this explanation do anything for anybody?
Comment
-
A couple years ago a dude got caught trying to blow up the airport. That's our 1 in a half-million for south-central KS.Originally posted by MoValley John View Post
If we could help 100k desperate people and had a 10-20% chance that 1, just 1, was a terrorist, I would be all for those odds.
Like I said, the exact line is hard to define and will differ from person to person, but the attitude that "no risk is acceptable" is beyond crazy.
If you told me there were only 300 terrorists (of any race, religion, etc.) already in the USA at this time, I would be ecstatic.Comment
-
To make the analogy more applicable, one of those M&Ms may not just kill you, but perhaps 10, 100, 500 or more.Originally posted by WstateU View Post
Comment
-
So it's acceptable that about 43,000 Americans may be killed by terrorists on American soil to you?Originally posted by Jamar Howard 4 President View PostKung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
Risk is found at the intersection of probability and impact. 43,000 Americans getting killed in one event is a large impact. But what's the probability that it would happen? Probably very low, because someone smarter than most of us who hang out in chat rooms has quantified this risk and put risk management mechanisms in place to address it.Originally posted by Kung Wu View Post
For instance, where would someone get enough nerve gas or explosives to detonate a device big enough to kill 43,000 people in one fell swoop?
Hint, the last time something of this magnitude occurred was when we dropped hydrogen bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Note that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 killed something on the order of 2700 people. A very healthy sum, but nowhere near 43,000.
So our experience would tell that this would fall under a 'black swan' kind of event (i.e. an outlier). Our experience tells us that because it's never happened.Comment
-
If business risk was managed by what 'could' happen as opposed to what 'we would expect' would happen, we would either never do anything because it was too risky, which would mean lost opportunity and stagnant business conditions or we would totally ignore the science of risk management, which would mean a LOT more economic upheaval and business failures.Comment
-
Please allow me to submit this for everyone's consideration. I bet this was in the Art of War as well, I know you like it, Kung. One of the self-limiting mechanisms that would tend to prevent a large terrorist attack is the fact that we put restrictions on dangerous chemicals and explosives. It would take someone a long time to obtain enough material do be able to build a killing machine that would take out 43,000 people.
Comment
-
How do I sound like a liberal? I took no side, I just pointed it out that approximately 350 terrorists would probably include a couple of them infiltrating Wichita. Moreover, when you consider that it took less than 10 to **** up Paris, 350 would certainly be enough to include Paris. From that, I leave it up to you to decide.Originally posted by shocka khan View Post
And aren't terrorists people? The NRA believes That guns don't kill people, but people kill people. My opinion is that people, not guns, kill people.There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.Comment
-
He wanted this to be about nothing but numbers. Well ... he said he would accept a 1 in 100,000 terrorist per illegal alien/refugee rate.Originally posted by shocka khan View Post
Well over the past several years, we have allowed about 12,000,000 illegal aliens in. So if 1:100,000 terrorists per illegal alien is acceptable ... then that's about 120 terrorists we would allow into the country.
19 terrorists killed over 2700 people in a single morning. That's a very REAL number. There's no speculation there or fantasy risk assessment.
If you scale that up, that's about 17,000 Americans killed on American soil by the "acceptable" number terrorists.
But then he went on to say that he would be "ecstatic" if there were only 300 terrorists in the country right now. Scale that up and you have about 42,000 Americans dead due to terrorist attack on American soil.
The point is ... there's a big difference between how many you let in, versus how many have accumulated over time. Just because you let only 100,000 refugees in does not mean you only have 1 terrorist in your country. You have that one plus all the others you have accumulated over the decades.
Plus, as you allow more in, they recruit and begin breeding just like the rest of the population. And breeding is not linear growth.
9/11 happened in 2001 -- that's 14 years ago -- almost a generation away. How many terrorists in the U.S. have been recruited or bred within our own borders since then?Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
Since when is a refugee an illegal alien?
Comment
-
Since never. What does that matter?Originally posted by Awesome Sauce Malone View PostKung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
Since you were equating illegal alien/refugee just above I figured Id ask.Originally posted by Kung Wu View PostComment
Comment