San Bernardino

OK. So what?

You think one's "more" relevant. Is a larger discussion of his beliefs then off the table in your mind?

President Obama isn't stupid. Politicians don't waste political capital on losing fights. Trying to take away guns would be a losing fight. A disastrous and overwhelmingly losing fight, especially given current Supreme Court rulings.

What he has done, and what he would like to do are very different things. And, you could say this about any number of politicians, on any number of subjects. I'm not sure why this is a source of contention for some of you.

 

Oh boy. The personalization of, "if it would save just one life."

 

This is pretty incredible when paired with his comments that ISIS was contained the day before the Paris attacks:

 

Radicalization preys on weak-minded people. They're not "adults" in the traditional sense, no matter how well they might be educated.

I look at it like, say, the Branch Davidians. Those people were duped because they were weak-minded, and Koresh knew it and used them to build his following. I can't imagine it's much different with radical Islam.

 

Touche. But then in this case we're using the words "mass shooting" in an intentionally misleading way.

 

Not my position at all. I'm simply pointing out how relatively few are deaths in mass shootings.

 

I just used the numbers being trotted out there by the Washington Post and NPR.

 

Then the Washington Post and NPR are using an intentionally misleading definition of "mass shooting."

 

The dresses he made those women wear ... really unsexy.

 

Unless it turns out that ISIS somehow provided them materials or meaningful support, calling this an ISIS attack is pretty disingenuous. It's ISIS-inspired, I guess.

 

"Relative" to what? Still sounds like a lot of deaths to me.

And, so what? Those permanently maimed or wounded are victims too, right?