4 ms·

That's not the argument i'm making, and i feel i stated it perfectly clearly in the earlier post.

• Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
  You're suggesting that Kansas is at fault for not taking measures to prevent terrorist attacks. When asked to elaborate, you said that their gun laws are to blame. I asked you to correlate increased gun ownership to increased terrorist attacks. You can't, and your argument is bollocks.
  • Mithaldu 10y ago
    That is not the argument I made and you continuing to attribute that to me is bad faith. Please review: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723962 vvv E: holy shit, your willingness to be absurd about this is mind-boggling, especially when you ask for source for a thing i already linked. further engagement with you is a waste of everyone else's time. and yes, at this point i mean to be unkind to you, since you're just trolling, not expressing fear in response to a murder vvv
    • Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
      Okay. >Gun possession increases the frequency of deaths due to terrorist attacks Please provide evidence to support this conclusion. >Basic physics. Physics doesn't say that owning a gun will make you point it at another person and pull the trigger. >Guns make it easier to achieve death of others. Agreed. >All other things being equal, less guns = less deaths, more guns = more deaths. This doesn't follow. Please provide a source. Less apples = more starvation? >Kansas makes it worse by not even pretending to restrict guns to anyone of any mental disposition. Does this lead to more deaths due to terrorist attacks (guns or no)? Source? Edit: >holy shit, your willingness to be absurd about this is mind-boggling Isn't it mean to call someone absurd? ;) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723665