Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen, who has held senior positions at the NCC and the White House in both Democratic and Republican administrations over the last 27 years, said recently, "We find ourselves in a more dangerous situation because our population of violent extremists has no difficulty gaining access to weapons that are quite lethal."

Indeed, an al Qaeda spokesperson said in a 2011 training video, "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully-automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

And just yesterday, ISIS released a video in which Abu Salih al-Amriki urges allies in the United States to "take advantage of the fact that you can easily obtain a rifle or a pistol in America" to carry out attacks.

The possibility that Islamic State followers in the United States will acquire powerful weapons by legal means has been a growing concern of American counterterrorism officials, and should be part of the public debate about guns.

Interesting. They say it's easy to get guns here. Walk me through the steps of what I'd need to do to legally purchase a gun. To me needing to go through background checks, etc. doesn't make it "easy".

And if you're talking about them illegally obtaining guns, okay, explain which of our policies makes it easy to illegally obtain a gun.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen, who has held senior positions at the NCC and the White House in both Democratic and Republican administrations over the last 27 years, said recently, "We find ourselves in a more dangerous situation because our population of violent extremists has no difficulty gaining access to weapons that are quite lethal."

Indeed, an al Qaeda spokesperson said in a 2011 training video, "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully-automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

And just yesterday, ISIS released a video in which Abu Salih al-Amriki urges allies in the United States to "take advantage of the fact that you can easily obtain a rifle or a pistol in America" to carry out attacks.

The possibility that Islamic State followers in the United States will acquire powerful weapons by legal means has been a growing concern of American counterterrorism officials, and should be part of the public debate about guns.

Yes, so what is your position regarding this?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And just yesterday, ISIS released a video in which Abu Salih al-Amriki urges allies in the United States to "take advantage of the fact that you can easily obtain a rifle or a pistol in America" to carry out attacks.


Great...

Originally posted by Surtur
Interesting. They say it's easy to get guns here. Walk me through the steps of what I'd need to do to legally purchase a gun. To me needing to go through background checks, etc. doesn't make it "easy".

And if you're talking about them illegally obtaining guns, okay, explain which of our policies makes it easy to illegally obtain a gun.

If you purchase a firearm from an unlicensed or private seller, you do not need to undergo a background check at all.

Up to 50% of vendors at gun shows are unlicensed, and approximately 22% of people who purchased firearms in 2015 did not undergo a background check.

So your "burdensome" background check is not even a requirement to legally purchase a firearm.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Yes, so what is your position regarding this?

If your gun laws are being exploited by terrorists, then you need new laws.

How does that work?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you purchase a firearm from an unlicensed or private seller, you do not need to undergo a background check at all.

Up to 50% of vendors at gun shows are unlicensed, and approximately 22% of people who purchased firearms in 2015 did not undergo a background check.

So your "burdensome" background check is not even a requirement to legally purchase a firearm.

Are those new guns being sold or used guns?

Originally posted by NewGuy01
How does that work?

It is a law that licensed gun sellers must perform background checks, but it is not a law that gun sellers must be licensed.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Are those new guns being sold or used guns?

What difference does it make? Are old guns somehow less able to be used by terrorists? This is precisely the sort of loophole that terrorists are exploiting.

I believe both new and used guns are to be found for sale at gun shows.

Though I believe what Abu Salih al-Amriki was referring to was how easily someone can get guns and then go Jihad in America. eg Omar Mateen purchased both a pistol and AR-15 type legally, he walked out the same day with the AR-15 and waited the three day period for his handgun before killing 49 people.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe both new and used guns are to be found for sale at gun shows.

It should also be noted that a terrorist can just as easily kill people with a used gun as with a new gun.

I have been to said "shows."

I just want to get a better view from the person setting the narrative of this topic. Since I know for a fact there are background checks from various vendors at gun shows.

I edited, as Adam already covered the lethal point of a used vs new gun.

Let me also clarify my position.

If there is a loophole, I want it closed. I don't want high capacity magazines to be legal, bumper stocks, silencers etc

Can you cite your resource material for me please adam.

I'm actually curious why someone can walk out same day with an AR-15 type rifle but has to wait three-days for a handgun?

If someone is going to mass murder people, an AR-15 type is the superior weapon to use. Both the Florida and Las Vegas attacks illustrate this.

Awww... This is so sad. But remember. Gun Crime can't be Fought, like all other crimes. So Passing More Laws is pointless.

Originally posted by Robtard
I edited, as Adam already covered the lethal point of a used vs new gun.

The reason I asked that in regards to this :

"If you purchase a firearm from an unlicensed or private seller, you do not need to undergo a background check at all."

Any merchant that buys guns from manufacturers to sell is tracked, if they want to stay in business it doesn't benefit them to not background check because the guns will all trace back to them.

I've never seen a vendor at a gun show sell a gun without a background check in the state of MO, I can't speak to all places obviously. If it is a used gun its probably pretty old BECAUSE if the seller isn't licensed and the they sell their gun its still tracks back to the original owner..............so once again they would be responsible for any potential actions taken with said weapon.

Hey! Don't bring FACTS into Adam's Leftist Fascist Dogma Thread.

This is an interesting video in regards to the topic:

CNNGunShowBuys

Shocking but it really reflects our mindset on marketing and making money and the gun culture in general.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you purchase a firearm from an unlicensed or private seller, you do not need to undergo a background check at all.

Up to 50% of vendors at gun shows are unlicensed, and approximately 22% of people who purchased firearms in 2015 did not undergo a background check.

So your "burdensome" background check is not even a requirement to legally purchase a firearm.

Well they certainly should change the law so that you cannot legally sell a firearm without a background checking have been done on the person at some point.

Originally posted by snowdragon
The reason I asked that in regards to this :

"If you purchase a firearm from an unlicensed or private seller, you do not need to undergo a background check at all."

Any merchant that buys guns from manufacturers to sell is tracked, if they want to stay in business it doesn't benefit them to not background check because the guns will all trace back to them.

I've never seen a vendor at a gun show sell a gun without a background check in the state of MO, I can't speak to all places obviously. If it is a used gun its probably pretty old BECAUSE if the seller isn't licensed and the they sell their gun its still tracks back to the original owner..............so once again they would be responsible for any potential actions taken with said weapon.

I thought it was against the law to sell a gun without a license.

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

"As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and
sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast,
if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal
collection, you do not need to be licensed."

This needs to be changed. It would mean I could legally make a one time sale to someone without any sort of background check if I wanted. It would make it easy for families to sell relatives guns.

Originally posted by snowdragon
This is an interesting video in regards to the topic:

CNNGunShowBuys

Shocking but it really reflects our mindset on marketing and making money and the gun culture in general. Wow. This is the most immediate problem imo, background checks and similar laws are pointless if you cannot enforce them.

Does this "Counter-terrorism Expert" factor in all those Illegal Guns Obama gave to Drug Cartels?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully-automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card.

I'd like to see some proof of this.

And yet places like California make it Legal to knowingly spread AIDS and HIV.

We live in a funny old world.

baPgr_tw79Q

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Ask al Qaeda spokesperson Adam Gadahn, he is the one who said it. You both conveniently left that part out of your selective quote.

If you didn't agree with his statement, you should have said so when you posted it.

So just to be clear; you don't agree with him, right?

-> Is caught lying
-> Deflects with "other people lie too"

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-> Is caught lying
-> Deflects with "other people lie too"

It worked for the Clintons and Obama.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you didn't agree with his statement, you should have said so when you posted it.

So just to be clear; you don't agree with him, right?

It is not taking a position to report what someone said.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not taking a position to report what someone said.

So what is your position?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So what is your position?

What ever the DNC tells him it is.

Just some gun info for all of those who are curious.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-eYzuNeGlvqo/Wkg5Mn5ZiqI/AAAAAAAAEIw/z8-gb_rruNIVXz8YIp2D1PMZ26l1P60iwCL0BGAYYCw/h486/2017-12-30.png

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qH_rZ1BXRNQ/Wkg5_g6J1pI/AAAAAAAAEI4/QxJVrPxVxH0PdpM5eqR4u1R6I7Ujfsj2wCL0BGAYYCw/h714/2017-12-30.jpg

No correlation between states gun policy and overall homicide rate. While it can affect their firearm homicide rate, it is just replaced by other deaths. To quote the professor, UCLA Eugine Volokh,



https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bl7fpa_JJ0Y/Wkg8l83tvlI/AAAAAAAAEJM/7vfVa0YY18YXxvQEnBxLVRC79AKbT0KiwCL0BGAYYCw/h644/2017-12-30.png

Here is a scatter plot.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-soYkZuGVjho/Wkg80GOp-tI/AAAAAAAAEJQ/DHiJN_NCCNwgi85r-QHIZgYBlRugkCMeACL0BGAYYCw/h1074/2017-12-30.png

To quote Volokh,



Response to some objections/questions:

What about Australia?

The International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences did a meta-analysis on each of the studies regarding Australia's gun policy and gleaned this result.



Show me causation, not just correlation.

I have shown some graphs and data which certainly indicate no correlation. But we all know that correlation does NOT equal causation. To answer this question, I refer to the work of the economists Mark Gius and John Lott.



What about mass shootings?

Before I dive into this objection, I want to clarify some misnomers about mass shootings. The Congressional Research Service did a study regarding mass-shootings in America. According to the CRS, mass shootings have killed 567 people over the course of three decades. This means that mass shootings make up less than 1% of all firearm homicides. That being said gun policy still does policy still has nominal to negative effects on Mass-shootings. To quote the abstract of another study conducted by Mark Gius,



What is the contrary evidence?

The Standford Law Professor John Donahue has conducted a multitude scholarly work regarding guns precipitating more crime. I will begin by attacking his methodology and then dive into the data. The study at hand looks at two to four states and attempts to use their data to apply it to the entire country. To quote Lott,



The fundamental premise of the study is that police underestimate crime committed by permit-holders. To quote Lott yet again,



So, not only is Donahue using 4 states to gauge the effect of federal policy, he is also over asserting the crime of permit-holders with little evidence. Not to mention, the majority of the empirical work on the subject is not congruent with Donahue's results. Maryland Law did a study on all of the published, peer review work regarding 'right to carry laws' and crimes. Here is their findings,



There is only one published study that indicates that "right to carry concealed laws" do decrease crime.

This article pretty clearly goes through all of the data and debunks said study in far greater detail then I have: https://crimeresearch.org/2017/07/badly-flawed-misleading-donohue-aneja-weber-study/

I have seen many articles from Vox which display studies that indicate gun-ownership increases homicides. I will go through each Vox study and aggregation and discuss the flaws with each and then show the most recent data on the subject.

Vox Study one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975

In a lot of my responses, I will be citing the biggest meta-analysis conducted in recent history regarding the relationship between gun homicides and gun ownership. So, the fundamental problem with this study is that it does not include the casual order issue. The causal order issue is the idea that crime rates affect gun rates, instead of the reverse. The lack of accountment for this issue causes the study's results to be tainted. There are a few ways to account for this predicament. To quote the Journal of Criminal Justice,



Vox Study Two: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

John Lott wrote a letter to the authors of the study asking questioning their regression model and it remains unanswered: https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/problems-with-public-health-research-michael-siegel-craig-ross-and-charles-king-the-relationship-between-gun-ownership-and-firearm-homicide-rates-in-the-united-states-1981-2010-ajph/

Vox now cites an aggregation of the research conducted by Harvard Journal of Public Health in 2004. It is worth noting that a more recent Harvard Law Study has been conducted and found the opposite: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The main issue with each of these aggregations is that they do not identify the strongest and weakest studies and use all of the data despite its legitimacy. There is only one aggregation that has analyzed each study used. https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gun-Crime-Methodological-Review-of-the-Evidence.pdf

Here is the part of the abstract and conclusion:



Great Podcast on the subject: http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/d/f/7/df7e8740ce279618/woods_05_29_2014_2.mp3?c_id=7791197&expiration=1514740023&hwt=61fdaa4b588decfb9fc1f377889d3e6d

I have gone to great lengths to show that the claims made by this Counterterrorism Expert are inaccurate and fallacious.

So "Great Length" includes putting up very easy to fake and crappy looking graphs and charts?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So "Great Length" includes putting up very easy to fake and crappy looking graphs and charts?

Deconstructing the most recent meta-analyses on guns. Looking at over 20 studies on gun homicides. So, I'd say based on the average post on KMC that is great lengths. And each of my graphs is from credible sources. The first graph is from the AEI, the next two are from a UCLA Law Professor on the Washington Post. The next two are from John Lott, who has been a criminologist and economist for years.

Literally none of that matters okey

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Deconstructing the most recent meta-analyses on guns. Looking at over 20 studies on gun homicides. So, I'd say based on the average post on KMC that is great lengths. And each of my graphs is from credible sources. The first graph is from the AEI, the next two are from a UCLA Law Professor on the Washington Post. The next two are from John Lott, who has been a criminologist and economist for years.

Plus people always talk about the number of gun deaths(and dishonest enough to include suicides when what people care about is guns being used to kill others), but they rarely discuss the number of times guns are used defensively each year. Which far outstrips the number of deaths per year, even if you include suicides. And a defensive use of a gun isn't even necessarily an instance of using it to kill someone or even firing it. If you try to rob me and I pull out a gun and you back off and leave...I just used that gun to defend myself.

Some videos worth watching:

Bsidht3X6kI

IULSD8VwXEs

And here is Ben debunking the nonsense Jimmy Kimmel spewed with some interesting stats:

mVvRUn9L0XU

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0

I have gone to great lengths to show that the claims made by this Counterterrorism Expert are inaccurate and fallacious. Uh, no. You've misunderstood what the expert said and have went off in a tangent posting statistics that have little bearing on what was claimed. What the expert said was that America's lax gun laws allow extremists to more easily purchase lethal weapons, and we have more than one example of terrorist groups encouraging their members to take advantage of America's gun laws. The expert said nothing about the correlation (or lack thereof) between gun ownership and overall homicides, or indeed mass shootings (although America undoubtedly leads the world in that metric). He simply cited America's current regulations as a potential danger as they could be exploited by extremists. That's his job as a counter terrorism expert, to pre-empt the actions of terrorists and identify vulnerabilities. Relative to other countries, purchasing guns in America is very easy, so that will be a tempting target for terrorists and is a totally fair thing to draw attention to.

Originally posted by lazybones
Uh, no. You've misunderstood what the expert said and have went off in a tangent posting statistics that have little bearing on what was claimed. What the expert said was that America's lax gun laws allow extremists to more easily purchase lethal weapons, and we have more than one example of terrorist groups encouraging their members to take advantage of America's gun laws. The expert said nothing about the correlation (or lack thereof) between gun ownership and overall homicides, or indeed mass shootings (although America undoubtedly leads the world in that metric). He simply cited America's current regulations as a potential danger as they could be exploited by extremists. That's his job as a counter terrorism expert, to pre-empt the actions of terrorists and identify vulnerabilities. Relative to other countries, purchasing guns in America is very easy, so that will be a tempting target for terrorists and is a totally fair thing to draw attention to.

How do you recommend we solve a situation like...a private transaction of a gun? Because that is how these things happen. There is no "gunshow loophole". There is a "private transaction loophole", a licensed firearm seller cannot legally sell you a gun at a gun show without a background check and ID. So how do we stop it? I'm curious for solutions. Like if some dude is selling a gun privately and I have cash money on hand, what law prevents that from going down?

This is an open question to anyone here: I'm genuinely curious about viable solutions.

I'm still waiting on proof in regards to this claim.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm still waiting on proof in regards to this claim.

The hilarious thing is fully automatic assault rifles are illegal and have been since the 80s lol. So of course you wouldn't go through a background check. I'm shocked that criminals that sell guns don't do background checks.

Originally posted by Surtur
The hilarious thing is fully automatic assault rifles are illegal and have been since the 80s lol. So of course you wouldn't go through a background check. I'm shocked that criminals that sell guns don't do background checks.

Oh for the good old days when you could buy a Tommy Gun from a hardware store for less then $20.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Oh for the good old days when you could buy a Tommy Gun from a hardware store for less then $20.

Indeed, you would literally need a time machine in order to legally purchase a fully automatic assault rifle. And if one has a time machine why waste it on that?

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, you would literally need a time machine in order to legally purchase a fully automatic assault rifle. And if one has a time machine why waste it on that?

You can actually legally purchase them now, it's just not easy or cheap.

pRjGvfoEl5Q

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
]I did not misunderstand what the expert said. The point of my post, though I agree it was more of an overarching statement, then a debunk, was to illustrate that despite the ready availableness of guns it does not hamper safety. I highly doubt that terrorists use the US gun policy as their primary source of guns as opposed to arms dealers. But, America is not the leader in mass shootings if we account for population.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-LaGwZemJVYc/WkmS2cInDEI/AAAAAAAAEKA/t-Xr4AdPDKM6jAIrR40F_I4y9_2K3MvUwCL0BGAYYCw/h505/2017-12-31.png


This article addresses the terrorist gun connection quite well: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-problems-with-using-the-terrorist-watch-list-to-ban-gun-sales/ That's honestly very interesting, haven't seen mass shootings broken down that way before. On the other hand, though, there was a recent study which found that the US only has 5% of the world's population but 31% of its mass-shootings, so that would suggest it's still a much bigger problem in America than other countries.

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2F2858772c-a7e1-11e7-ab55-27219df83c97?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=500

All that being said, the musings of a counter terrorist expert are not flawless. But I doubt someone with almost 3 decades of experience would be ignorant of the statistics, and must have good reasons for his concerns (one of them being the words and claims of the terrorists themselves).


You underestimate the determination of this statist. .

Anyway, I'll be getting a new computer on Wednesday which will free me from the malaise of my smartphone. You could use the time between now and then to write up a plea for mercy, and perhaps I will consider it. .

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If there was the same 24-month long vetting process in place before one could purchase a firearm as there is for one to enter the country as a refugee, you might have an argument.

You ever gonna prove this?

"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully-automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card"

Prove it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If there was the same 24-month long vetting process in place before one could purchase a firearm as there is for one to enter the country as a refugee, you might have an argument.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, valid points that I'm sure will be either ignored or some half assed excuse made for it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You can actually legally purchase them now, it's just not easy or cheap.

pRjGvfoEl5Q

The hilarious thing is it seems like it would be easier to just illegally purchase these weapons lol.

I'm thinking that terrorists probably would just buy one illegally as opposed to the long ass wait time, the large amount of money, the yearly taxes you need to pay where if you fail you need to sell the gun...yeah, sounds like a lot of hassle for a terrorist.

I do hope it was just Adam making the retarded claim. It is alarming if this "expert" thinks this is possible.

Originally posted by lazybones
That's honestly very interesting, haven't seen mass shootings broken down that way before. On the other hand, though, there was a recent study which found that the US only has 5% of the world's population but 31% of its mass-shootings, so that would suggest it's still a much bigger problem in America than other countries.

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2F2858772c-a7e1-11e7-ab55-27219df83c97?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=500

This study is quite frankly inaccurate. The crimonlogist Gary Kleck has detailed his issues with the studies. I will mention a few.

Problem 1: The study attempts to analyize 46 years of data. The problem with this is that, "while data may be easily found for U.S. shootings, compiling information for developing nations could be all but impossible.". Due to the artificially low data, it creates a potempkin phasad that indicates that U.S. represents a higher bulk of mass shootings then it actually does.

Problem 2: Lankford, the author of the study, has not yet provided his methodology as to how he found the mass-shooting rates in developing countries. While Fox certainly is a skewed source, I found this passage interesting.



Problem 3: The lack of peer review. To quote Kleck and professor Reed,





The only people who reviewed the study were anonymous, independent researchers.

Problem 4: Even if the data were true, the US does not have the highest mass-shooting mortallity per capita.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-56E0d5m-kn8/Wkpxv3RjC7I/AAAAAAAAEL0/HLksaxUlUyU0yIB36JA1Lpe5RYyNAH_ZQCL0BGAYYCw/h507/2018-01-01.png

Problem 5: I am now going to cite a graph which has a lot of contention and hopefully justify its usage.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-L4uwAv5UNio/WkpyBQvAblI/AAAAAAAAEL0/EEPxajC62W4dJXwiGPpcvPAHXTUk3k2QgCL0BGAYYCw/h412/2018-01-01.png

So, there are two studies which have different results then this graph. So, why is this analysis more accurate then the other two. The first contrary analysis was conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety. The first fault is that it includes masshootings in private homes. The problem with including private homes is that the reasoning behind a public and private mass shooting is notably different.(Drug crimes, robery, kidnapping, murder). So, the research which is inside of this graph looks as at mass public shootings. Here is the FBI's definition of a mass public shooting:




They also mislabel over 18 mass shootings. Those mislables can be found here: https://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

The second contrary study is inside Louis Klarevas. The issue with Klarevas is that he does not use the FBI definition of mass shootings. To quote Klarevas,



Here is the FBI definition of a mass shooting.



So it is my contention that Lott's graph is the most accurate.

Problem 6: All mass shootings, including private ones, make up less then 1% of firearm homicides. And of course there is the study by Gium which indicates that assault rifle bans increase public mass shootings.





He did not provide any evidence to substaite his claims. So, while he may be aware of studies which I did not mention in either of my posts, he never cited any.



I look forward to it. Good luck.

Yet, it did not stop you from drawing the comparison, did it?

You questioned why "the left" is concerned about terrorists threatening to buy firearms for use in terror attacks, but not about terrorists threatening to enter the country as refugees.

And I explained to you that there is a 24-month long vetting process to enter the country as a refugee, but one can purchase a firearm without so much as background check.

There is a system in place to stop one threat, but not the other. That is why.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, it did not stop you from drawing the comparison, did it?

You questioned why "the left" is concerned about terrorists threatening to buy firearms for use in terror attacks, but not about terrorists threatening to enter the country as refugees.

And I explained to you that there is a 24-month long vetting process to enter the country as a refugee, but one can purchase a firearm without so much as background check.

There is a system in place to stop one threat, but not the other. That is why.

"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully-automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

You realize this is not true, correct? Who knew an al Qaeda spokesperson would be wrong?

Originally posted by Surtur
I do hope it was just Adam making the retarded claim. It is alarming if this "expert" thinks this is possible.

Speaking of retards, it is alarming you think our nation's lead counterterrorism expert, whose job is to protect us from national security threats, knows less about the subject than a YouTuber.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Speaking of retards, it is alarming you think our nation's lead counterterrorism expert, whose job is to protect us from national security threats, knows less about the subject than a YouTuber.

So just to be clear again, you know the shit you posted was false, correct? At least the bit I highlighted. It was nowhere near being correct.

Originally posted by Surtur
So just to be clear again, you know the shit you posted was false, correct? At least the bit I highlighted.

Originally posted by lazybones
Uh, no. You've misunderstood what the expert said and have went off in a tangent posting statistics that have little bearing on what was claimed. What the expert said was that America's lax gun laws allow extremists to more easily purchase lethal weapons, and we have more than one example of terrorist groups encouraging their members to take advantage of America's gun laws.

. . . He simply cited America's current regulations as a potential danger as they could be exploited by extremists. That's his job as a counter terrorism expert, to pre-empt the actions of terrorists and identify vulnerabilities. Relative to other countries, purchasing guns in America is very easy, so that will be a tempting target for terrorists and is a totally fair thing to draw attention to.

Once again, this:

"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully-automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

That is not true. Do you acknowledge this?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE


In regards to the second quote you posted, that was already countered.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
In regards to the second quote you posted, that was already countered.

I am personally going to email the head of Al Queda for spreading misinformation. Yes they deserve to die and I hope burn in hell. Hellllll!

mCjBspxuUmU

Originally posted by Surtur
I am personally going to email the head of Al Queda for spreading misinformation. Yes they deserve to die and I hope burn in hell. Hellllll!

mCjBspxuUmU

I love all of the myths about gun control...

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I love all of the myths about gun control...

It's just alarming because some of the people who know nothing about it are the ones who have millions of people listening to them. People probably believed what people like Jimmy Kimmel say.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's just alarming because some of the people who know nothing about it are the ones who have millions of people listening to them. People probably believed what people like Jimmy Kimmel say.

Where these things come from is the media sensationalizing and fear-mongering the shit out of people when it comes to "mass shootings."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Where these things come from is the media sensationalizing and fear-mongering the shit out of people when it comes to "mass shootings."

And they never mention context lol. Going by population percentage, you could argue it is not whites who commit the most mass shootings. These are "racist" facts. Like these facts attended KKK meetings.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Where these things come from is the media sensationalizing and fear-mongering the shit out of people when it comes to "mass shootings."

I love the fact that mass shootings make up less than 1% of firearm homicides.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Speaking of retards, it is alarming you think our nation's lead counterterrorism expert, whose job is to protect us from national security threats, knows less about the subject than a YouTuber.

Provide proof that this "counterterrorism expert" was right about being able to buy fully automatic rifles without a background check.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Provide proof that this "counterterrorism expert" was right about being able to buy fully automatic rifles without a background check.

Indeed, I'm still waiting on that too.

Adam, where the proof?

I haven't seen proof of fully automatic guns being purchased.

Still curious about that proof...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Speaking of retards, it is alarming you think our nation's lead counterterrorism expert, whose job is to protect us from national security threats, knows less about the subject than a YouTuber.

TBF, whatever youtuber probably has a lot more followers than our top government counter-terrorism expert. Things that matter.

Originally posted by Robtard
TBF, whatever youtuber probably has a lot more followers than our top government counter-terrorism expert. Things that matter.

Retards gonna retard. Still demanding proof of a claim I did not make, and is not central to my argument in any way. But they think they have a "gotcha" because I either defend a terrorist, or our nation's lead counterterrorism expert is wrong. Sorry, but one has nothing to do with the other. Nicholas Rasmussen is not wrong if Adam Gadahn is wrong. I am deferring to the expert opinion of the National Counterterrorism Center Director, so I do not know why I am being asked to defend the opinion of the spokesperson of al Qaeda. It is like they do not even logic.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Retards gonna retard. Still demanding proof of a claim I did not make, and is not central to my argument in any way. But they think they have a "gotcha" because I either defend a terrorist, or our nation's lead counterterrorism expert is wrong. Sorry, but one has nothing to do with the other. Nicholas Rasmussen is not wrong if Adam Gadahn is wrong. I am deferring to the expert opinion of the National Counterterrorism Center Director, so I do not know why I am being asked to defend the opinion of the spokesperson of al Qaeda. It is like they do not even logic.

You posted a quote, did you know it was not true when you posted it?

And I acknowledged you did not say it personally and that an Al Queda spokesperson did. But again I refer to the above question: did you know it was not true when you posted it?

as a non american, hearing about the ease of access to guns for normal american citizens is pretty crazy tbh

Originally posted by D1ckSpl1tter
as a non american, hearing about the ease of access to guns for normal american citizens is pretty crazy tbh

The truth is most of the people who buy firearms in this country do not get them easily and background checks are done. We do indeed have problems with people privately selling guns. But I'd ask you a question I asked others: If I own a gun and I want to sell it to my friend for cash, what law could stop me?

Originally posted by Surtur
You posted a quote, did you know it was not true when you posted it?

Originally posted by lazybones
Uh, no. . . . What the expert said was that America's lax gun laws allow extremists to more easily purchase lethal weapons, and we have more than one example of terrorist groups encouraging their members to take advantage of America's gun laws.

You get that, right? That the quotes are merely examples of terrorist groups encouraging their members to take advantage of U.S. gun laws? It does not matter how accurate they are, they are doing the very thing the NCC Director warns they would do.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You get that, right? That the quotes are merely examples of terrorist groups encouraging their members to take advantage of U.S. gun laws? It does not matter how accurate they are, they are doing the very thing the NCC Director warns they would do.

I understand now and I apologize.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Retards gonna retard. Still demanding proof of a claim I did not make, and is not central to my argument in any way. But they think they have a "gotcha" because I either defend a terrorist, or our nation's lead counterterrorism expert is wrong. Sorry, but one has nothing to do with the other. Nicholas Rasmussen is not wrong if Adam Gadahn is wrong. I am deferring to the expert opinion of the National Counterterrorism Center Director, so I do not know why I am being asked to defend the opinion of the spokesperson of al Qaeda. It is like they do not even logic.

Trumpers and logic are like oil and water.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trumpers and logic are like oil and water.

^^More bigotry. Reported.