Trump's no monster... and he's not mad either

[gracepoole]

Fine, you don’t think the fear is justifird. I do as well as many others. I am not an official as I’ve told you before. Why are you asking me? I trust the officials that say we have a problem in our vetting process. Is that so hard for you to understand?

Nope! I completely get it. And I’m trying to point out that you need far better reasons to trust your officials than those given to you. I’ve asked you before to describe the vetting process undertaken by the Obama administration and you’ve acknowledged that you can’t. How, then, can you possibly support officials’ claims that we now need “extreme” vetting? Especially when the odds of a refugee terrorist being admitted to the US are so ridiculously low?

 

[7_Sorrows]

And that’s irrational, at least in terms of refugee terrorists. You have to at least accept that.

I don’t see anything irrational at all.

 

[gracepoole]

I don’t see anything irrational at all.

I know you don’t. But saying it doesn’t make it so. Support your conclusion.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

Vetting process: there have been a number of comments and articles, as well as reference to Congressional hearings, regarding the vetting of refugees from war torn Middle Eastern countries. I have posted on this topic as have others. Please google these topics or refer to these threads because it is much too much to start over again from scratch.

Vetting is nearly impossible because these various countries do not have the type of databases and record keeping that we have in the Western world. If you were going to do a background check in the US, you would look at birth certificate, criminal record, school and employment history, motor vehicles, driver’s license, credit report, etc.

The record keeping system and databases are not the same in the Middle East. Unless you actually go to some of these countries, it is hard to imagine the contrast in way of life.

In Middle Eastern war torn countries, you are looking at cities of bombed out and burned out government buildings, homes, businesses, etc. Think of pulling financial records out of the rubble of the World Trade Center or finding court records from a courthouse that was washed away or family photos from the Lower 9th Ward parish after Hurricane Katrina.

The FBI and other intelligence agencies have testified in public hearings as to the risks and difficulties and near impossibilities involved. Simple logic would tell you the European Union countries will have the same difficulties and challenges that the US would have. It is not as if Europe is going to find records from destroyed infrastructure and the US won’t.

The matter of vetting, inherent risks and difficulties, really should not be a matter of debate.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

Tell the kids (students) at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio that terrorism is not an issue. They all should have played the lottery that day because they hit that 1 in 3.6 billion you claim as their personal risk. Telling people their fears are irrational will not get you very far argument wise. You might want to try a different tactic; I don’t think many of the people on these forums are buying what you are selling.

 

[joshman1]

Tell the kids (students) at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio that terrorism is not an issue. They all should have played the lottery that day because they hit that 1 in 3.6 billion you claim as their personal risk. Telling people their fears are irrational will not get you very far argument wise. You might want to try a different tactic; I don’t think many of the people on these forums are buying what you are selling.

I’m buying it. Why don’t we ban guns then?

 

[3_Dog_Night]

Josh, I am so very sorry to inform you that the attack in Columbus, Ohio happened with a vehicle and large knife/ machete. It was a gun that killed the attacker and brought the attack to an end. You have this all wrong; you simply do not understand. We need to ban vehicles (cars, trucks, mini-vans, box trucks, etc.) and we need to ban knives (kitchen knives, machetes, hunting knives, etc.) A gun resulted in saved lives and a vehicle and a knife resulted in 9 or 11 injured. Some of the injuries were serious, but fortunately there were no fatalities except the attacker – thanks to three level one trauma centers nearby along with a very professional and responsive police and fire departments. That is why we don’t ban guns. A good man (or woman) with a gun can take down a bad man (or woman) with a vehicle and a knife. Thus we have the saying, “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.”

I hope this helped.

 

[joshman1]

Josh, I am so very sorry to inform you that the attack in Columbus, Ohio happened with a vehicle and large knife/ machete. It was a gun that killed the attacker and brought the attack to an end. You have this all wrong; you simply do not understand. We need to ban vehicles (cars, trucks, mini-vans, box trucks, etc.) and we need to ban knives (kitchen knives, machetes, hunting knives, etc.) A gun resulted in saved lives and a vehicle and a knife resulted in 9 or 11 injured. Some of the injuries were serious, but fortunately there were no fatalities except the attacker – thanks to three level one trauma centers nearby along with a very professional and responsive police and fire departments. That is why we don’t ban guns. A good man (or woman) with a gun can take down a bad man (or woman) with a vehicle and a knife. Thus we have the saying, “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.”

I hope this helped.

It didn’t help, its a dumb argument because all those things serve a purpose we cant go without. Every single data point we have shows that reducing guns saves lives.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

My argument about banning vehicles and knives was no “dumber” than your “dumb” question about banning guns. Obviously, guns do not kill people, people kill people. And obviously, vehicles and knives don’t kill people either, people kill people. My response was dripping with sarcasm that you conveniently ignored. Do I need a sarc off/ tag?

Ah yes, gun control and data points about gun violence and deaths. We are now into the arena of “lies, damn lies and statistics.” With your reasoning (and data points) then, Chicago with some of the strictest gun control laws in the US should be the safest place on earth. The truth is Chicago is a virtual war zone with all of their shootings/ killings.

Criminals and gang member care not one bit about gun laws and gun prohibitions. They will obtain weapons on the black market. When you take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, you have the worst of all worlds. The criminals are armed, the law abiding citizens are disarmed, and the thugs are free to roam and rob and rape at will.

But of course, you already know the talking points for the concealed carry proponents. Tell the Germans who are trying to find black market weapons to protect themselves from the joys of cultural diversity and cultural enrichment that gun control was a good idea. The founders of America were smart enough to put the 2nd Amendment after the 1st.

 

[sallybutler]

It didn’t help, its a dumb argument because all those things serve a purpose we cant go without. Every single data point we have shows that reducing guns saves lives.

Perhaps. However, as many will point out, there many other things that people die from that we don’t ban. How many die in car accidents? How many will die from toxic fume exposure in their past?

Just for the record, I don’t own a gun and won’t because I have not been trained in their use. I don’t like most of the current regulations as they are really just feel good laws (they make people feel like someone is doing something) and are not enforceable.

But I have discovered that standing in front of someone, shaking my finger for emphasis, and telling them how stupid and wrong headed they are doesn’t work.

Think of the lectures you were subjected to over your life. Did they work or just cause you to stop mentally listening?

 

[Faithdancer]

Perhaps. However, as many will point out, there many other things that people die from that we don’t ban. How many die in car accidents? How many will die from toxic fume exposure in their past?

Just for the record, I don’t own a gun and won’t because I have not been trained in their use. I don’t like most of the current regulations as they are really just feel good laws (they make people feel like someone is doing something) and are not enforceable.

But I have discovered that standing in front of someone, shaking my finger for emphasis, and telling them how stupid and wrong headed they are doesn’t work.

Think of the lectures you were subjected to over your life. Did they work or just cause you to stop mentally listening?

Indeed, firearm ownership is a serious commitment and proficiency training should be mandatory. Here in California, training is mandatory to be given a CCW permit. It’s also a higher level of commitment and a serious obligation.
I believe our president understands what responsible gun ownership is, and I applaud him for his 2nd Amendment stance.

And besides, abortion on demand must end!

 

[gracepoole]

Tell the kids (students) at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio that terrorism is not an issue. They all should have played the lottery that day because they hit that 1 in 3.6 billion you claim as their personal risk. Telling people their fears are irrational will not get you very far argument wise. You might want to try a different tactic; I don’t think many of the people on these forums are buying what you are selling.

What I’m “selling” is simple logic. If you have a swing set for your children to play on, if you ever use hot tap water, if you ever spend time around cows, or if you ever wear clothing, you’re at far, far greater odds of dying than via the hands of a refugee terrorist. Have you removed your swing set, grown accustomed to cold showers, sworn off farming, and become a nudist? If not, why not? There is a risk calculation in all such things. The fact that people are willing to accept the reasoned threat assessment for swing sets and hot water but not other human beings – particularly when these other human beings are far LESS likely to kill you – should be what’s worrisome.

If logic isn’t respected and “many people on these forums” aren’t “buying” it, that doesn’t speak badly of logic…

 

[Faithdancer]

Whatever the real odds of my being murdered by a terrorist are–those odds are reduced when I’m trained, locked and loaded.
'Nuff said.

And besides, abortion on demand must end!

 

[sallybutler]

What I’m “selling” is simple logic. If you have a swing set for your children to play on, if you ever use hot tap water, if you ever spend time around cows, or if you ever wear clothing, you’re at far, far greater odds of dying than via the hands of a refugee terrorist. Have you removed your swing set, grown accustomed to cold showers, sworn off farming, and become a nudist? If not, why not? There is a risk calculation in all such things. The fact that people are willing to accept the reasoned threat assessment for swing sets and hot water but not other human beings – particularly when these other human beings are far LESS likely to kill you – should be what’s worrisome.

If logic isn’t respected and “many people on these forums” aren’t “buying” it, that doesn’t speak badly of logic…

When it is a choice between logic and emotion, I bet more than 90% go with emotion.

 

[queenofheartscv]

What I’m “selling” is simple logic. If you have a swing set for your children to play on, if you ever use hot tap water, if you ever spend time around cows, or if you ever wear clothing, you’re at far, far greater odds of dying than via the hands of a refugee terrorist. Have you removed your swing set, grown accustomed to cold showers, sworn off farming, and become a nudist? If not, why not? There is a risk calculation in all such things. The fact that people are willing to accept the reasoned threat assessment for swing sets and hot water but not other human beings – particularly when these other human beings are far LESS likely to kill you – should be what’s worrisome.

If logic isn’t respected and “many people on these forums” aren’t “buying” it, that doesn’t speak badly of logic…

You should read Cardinal John Henry Newman’s book the Grammar of Assent, in which he states very truthfully:

“Logic makes but a sorry rhetoric with the multitude; first shoot round corners, and you may not despair of converting by a syllogism…man is not a reasoning animal; he is a seeing, feeling, contemplating, acting animal.”

“Persons influence us, voices melt us, looks subdue us, deeds inflame us. Many a man will live and die upon a dogma: no man will be a martyr for a conclusion.”

Although his subject is about how people come to any type of belief and on religion, his observations about how the human being functions is spot on. Logic has a place to play in negotiation of meaning, but ultimately we do not make decisions based on pure logic–the world functions on a lot more factors than just logic, and that doesn’t make us evil–it’s simply how the human being works.

If you are truthful to yourself, you’ll realize that’s how you work, too.

 

[gracepoole]

Logic has a place to play in negotiation of meaning, but ultimately we do not make decisions based on pure logic–the world functions on a lot more factors than just logic, and that doesn’t make us evil–it’s simply how the human being works.

If you are truthful to yourself, you’ll realize that’s how you work, too.

Of course we don’t make decisions based solely on logic. Read your Aristotle: pathos is important. But logos must never be subjugated by it. If you make decisions based primarily on emotion and logic doesn’t line up with your emotions’ conclusions, there’s a serious problem there.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Tell the kids (students) at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio that terrorism is not an issue. They all should have played the lottery that day because they hit that 1 in 3.6 billion you claim as their personal risk. Telling people their fears are irrational will not get you very far argument wise. You might want to try a different tactic; I don’t think many of the people on these forums are buying what you are selling.

That is right. Tell that to anyone who has been a victim of a terrorist attack in the U.S.
And you are basing your argument of irrational fear on one study?

 

[7_Sorrows]

I’m buying it. Why don’t we ban guns then?

Shall we ban machetes, knives, pressure cookers and large trucks while we are at it?

 

[sallybutler]

That is right. Tell that to anyone who has been a victim of a terrorist attack in the U.S.
And you are basing your argument of irrational fear on one study?

I am afraid of fires, but laugh at earthquakes (grew up in SF, what can I say). Hurricanes and tornadoes seem to cause hundreds of deaths every year, more than terrorists.

I vote that we ban all acts of God for 90 days while we review our current policy.

 

[sallybutler]

Shall we ban machetes, knives, pressure cookers and large trucks while we are at it?

No, no, no

those are useful to society