Posted on 11/11/2009 10:40:24 AM PST by Star Traveler
“The death toll in the 1994 genocide is estimated between 800,000 and 1 million killed.”
You know that deaths over 100 and committed in other countries don’t count. Forget Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao they were the wrong persuasion whether that be politics or color.
This was Murder by Political Correctness.
As I've said many times before, even though I voted for President Bush twice, I think he was totally wrong in declaring Islam to be a religion of peace and that Christians worship the same god as Muslims. Those are both lies and lies told by President George Bush, unfortunately.
On top of that, President Bush should have declared Islam as that fascist religio-governmental idealogy -- be totally outlawed and we should have made it absolutely clear that we're in a war against Islam.
But, it apparently wasn't something that President George Bush could do, or our Republican Party, and I sure don't expect the Democrats to do it, so that's what we're living with now.
You were saying... I’m just saying that the public, with less training has less ability to effectively stop mass shootings
Less ability is better than no ability, isn’t it?
LOL - what part of unarmed soldiers do you not understand?
But, again, that’s fine by me to have people carry to defend themselves. Just don’t expect the mass shootings to stop.
Because shooting back will never work, right? Too bad the cop who shot the jihadist didn't know that, she could have saved herself the trauma of being shot by the mass murderer she stopped.
Fundamentally wrong. If the perp want to be killed - it can be done swiftly by armed victims, therefore avoiding MASS casualties.
So you say, but it's way to easy to surprise people and kill a bunch of people in the general public or in an office, before anyone can respond to prevent those killings.
Keep in mind, in a military situation (which the public is not engaged in while going about their lives) -- soldiers are out and about in a war situation and they get killed all the time, and by surprise and ambush -- and they are fully armed and trained and capable. They still get killed.
So, no..., the public is still going to be subject to mass kilings no matter who is armed.
Well, it's a clear example to me, that if soldiers on an army base cannot defend themselves adequately, I really don't know how, many people here, think that they can do better than trained soldiers, with those soldiers having gone through combat and having had a lot of experience and being specifically trained.
In the spectrum of who can better defend himself (and others) against an armed shooter determined to kill as many people as he can, I would rank some general groups from LEAST CAPABLE to MOST CAPABLE as follows:
1. Hysterical Gun-grabber terrified of the thought of guns in the hands of citizens.
2. Hypocritical Gun-grabber terrified of the thought of guns in the hands of citizens but who keeps a gun himself.
3. Unarmed Soldier with combat training.
4. Armed citizen who has either (a) read the owner's manual for his gun, or (b) watched enough video to at least know how to operate the gun, or (c) practiced shooting the gun at least once.
5. Armed police officer.
6. Armed concealed carry permit holder, who by definition has taken a certified gun safety course and learned and demonstrated shooting proficiency.
7. Armed soldier, who has had combat training.
In other words, if I'm unarmed, then I would expect that an unarmed soldier like the ones at Fort Hood are better able to defend themselves based on their military training than I am; but if I'm armed, I think I stand a much better chance of defending myself against a shooter than did the unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood. (By the way, have you realized yet that all of the soldiers at Fort Hood on Thursday were UNARMED?)
In other words, if it can happen on one of the biggest bases around with soldiers all over the place, it's obvious that the general public doesn't have a chance in defending itself any better than what we saw at Fort Hood...
The key word missing from your conclusion is the word "unarmed" in front of soldiers. An ARMED public most definitely has a much better chance of defending itself than the unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood did.
“At Fort Hood, that’s a place where people have guns and know how to use them.”
That’s disinformation worthy of a gun banning socialist. The soldiers on base didn’t have guns because that was not permitted. Only the shooter and the police were armed. If the soldiers had been armed, the jihadist would have been taken out much sooner, and many fine people would still be alive.
Seriously, how could you not know this? It’s only been talked about several times a day here since the shootings occurred.
Because shooting back will never work, right? Too bad the cop who shot the jihadist didn't know that, she could have saved herself the trauma of being shot by the mass murderer she stopped.
Shooting back works to put an end to a situation like this, but it will never prevent it from happening in the first place and it will never prevent mass shootings from resulting in the deaths of people in the general public.
Arming everyone is fine, but it's not going to stop mass kilings and it's not going to prevent people from getting killed in the first place. The killings are going to happen. All that is going to happen is that the perpetrator will be shot (but then again, they usually shoot themselves anyway and kill themselves).
There is a now a very real concern that ANY muslim could be a killer. Any muslim doctor, taxi driver, police man, educator, etc., is now suspect.
“Well, it’s a clear example to me, that if soldiers on an army base cannot defend themselves adequately, I really don’t know how, many people here, think that they can do better than trained soldiers, with those soldiers having gone through combat and having had a lot of experience and being specifically trained.”
Well, lib, it’s like this: Those soldiers were UNARMED. They were not allowed to have guns on them. That’s why they were easy targets. And you apparently want to extend that same vulnerability to all of us.
See, I as a CCW holder who carries have a MUCH better chance of defending myself and others from a psycho than a room full of unarmed soldiers. That fact apparently seems beyond your grasp. Cognitive dissonance, ie you are ignoring it because it doesn’t fit with your gun-grabber worldview?
PS I thought that this was a conservative pro-2nd Amendment site. Star Traveler is repeating blatant misinformation and ignoring facts that counter his anti-2nd spewings. That’s not debate, that’s gun-grabber propagandizing. Can we get a ZOT here?!
Yes, there will always be violence, and we will always have people bent on killing people; and some will even want to kill as many as they can before they are stopped.
And you are correct that being armed will not prevent that. The question then becomes: What do you do to mitigate the situation? Do you move toward ensuring that everyone everywhere is an unarmed potential victim? Or do you move toward increasing freedom to defend oneself? The author of the article posted clearly advocates for the former, arguing that the guns themselves are the problem rather than the people who chose to commit the atrocities. In your statements that appear to argue the futility of armed self-defense, you appear to be advocating the same.
There is no perfect solution, short of the LORD establishing His Kingdom here on earth when sin will be abolished and we won’t have to worry about violence anymore anyway. Until then, the best solution is to expand freedom and make as much of our society as possible a very hazardous work environment for would-be mass murderers. Eliminating (or at least drastically reducing) “gun-free” zones is a good place to start.
“I’m just saying that it’s not going to stop the mass killings that we’ve seen over the years and decades.”
So you continue to ignore the specific examples upthread where EXACTLY THAT VERY THING has happened? Gee, there’s a shock. Not.
If you look at ST's profile, it would appear that SHE is a conservative - her comments on this thread notwithstanding. It also appears that her intent (not very well articulated on this thread) is not for more gun control, but rather that armed self-defense won't prevent these mass killings (although she at least seems to acknowledge that it might reduce the casualty count). To an extent, she is correct in that there are some who will still commit these crimes (or acts of treason) regardless, but clearly the ability to interrupt the mass killers by shooting back will reduce the body count, i.e. save some lives.
I have no idea what solution Star Traveler would propose (with the possible exception of banning Islam which is obviously not a feasible solution, and would have no impact on the many non-religiously-motivated shooting sprees that were mentioned int he first place).
And the fact that the targets of these killings are chosen by their killers, and always consist of groups of people certified and verified by their environment to be unarmed, is just a big fat coincidence, right? Nonsense - you have no grounds in either statistics nor common sense. Anywhere people are known to be armed, violent crime goes way down. And multiple killings always happen against known unarmed groups. Hell, they're multiplebecause no one can shoot back!
You're just trying to stir up trouble. Your anti-gun arguments are long disproved, and you're using the gun issue to try to shift perspective away from the fact that this was a Muslim jihad event.
But that's what it was - a Muslim jihad event that shows the real teaching of Islam, and directly casts into doubt the safety of everyone in the country in the presence of any Muslim anywhere. The fact that this killer was a psychiatrist trained to help people recover from trauma just underlines this point - Muslims lie and get into positions of trust so that they can commit jihad murder. They plan for this, they intend it, and they do it.
Which makes me wonder - is this the real reason you are so sure "the killings are going to happen"?
Because the one thing that can stop these bastards in their tracks and save lives, and deny them group targets of opportunity - the constant arming of the population - you are against. Oh, you say you "have nothing against" people carrying, but then you declare it "useless."
But don't worry, there are plenty of Muslims who will encourage your efforts. Maybe you know some of them?
Thank you for the info. I just recognized too much gun-banner spin in her posts, so I made a bad assumption.
Not a problem. I initially made the same assumption, and decided to check the profile to see what her story is. Still not sure, but at least it seems she is a well-meaning conservative.
Which makes me wonder - is this the real reason you are so sure "the killings are going to happen"?
Simple... it's "history". We've got a long history of it. See posting #2. That's just the major ones. In the times since Fort Hood, there have been more of these types of mass/public killings. I listed two of them above, too.
But don't worry, there are plenty of Muslims who will encourage your efforts. Maybe you know some of them?
Well, I can assure you that more killings from the Islamic terrorists are going to happen, if that's what you mean. That's pretty clear from their history, too. They're in their "third wave" since they started and it will probably go on for a hundred years or more (depending on what we do about it).
But, as a separate matter, the mass killings where our own people kill our own people, that will go on, also, just as it has for decades now. Our own people have been "settling matters" with each other for quite a while now, by killing off fellow citizens.
But, these two items are two separate matters. I wouldn't get the one confused with the other.
To an extent, she is correct in that there are some who will still commit these crimes (or acts of treason) regardless, but clearly the ability to interrupt the mass killers by shooting back will reduce the body count, i.e. save some lives.
The point of what I'm saying is that arming people, while that's a good idea and is for self-defense -- is simply not going to stop these kinds of mass killings. So people shouldn't kid themselves into thinking that this (i.e., arming themselves) is the answer to these kinds of mass killings. It's not.
Now, I'm not inclined at all to go in and start shooting it up with a bunch of people I don't know, just because I'm mad or I got divorced or I lost a job, or I'm mad at the world -- but -- just technically speaking -- it would be easy for me to go into a place and probaby kill ten people in short order without the chance for someone responding fast enough, even if everyone of them was armed. I would has surprise at my disposal and I was be ready and I would have the necessary weapons to carry it off in short order.
Now, perhaps this kind of person is nuts (most likely or has "snapped" [as in the Tualatin, Oregon shooting or the Orlando shooting]) and is will to be killed in the process -- but a bunch of other people are going to be taken out before anyone can respond.
See, I as a CCW holder who carries have a MUCH better chance of defending myself and others from a psycho than a room full of unarmed soldiers. That fact apparently seems beyond your grasp. Cognitive dissonance, ie you are ignoring it because it doesn’t fit with your gun-grabber worldview?
Well, I don't have a problem with any person carrying for their self-defense. But, that is not going to stop the problem with the mass killings when someone goes out in a public place (or business or shopping center or restaurant, places like this) and takes people by surprise and starts killing a number of people right off the bat.
You're still going to have this kind of problem with mass kilings, because these people expect to be killed and most of them (look at that list up above) kill themselves anyway.
And lastly, you won't find me advocating grabbing guns away from people's own self-defense. You're barking up the wrong tree there... LOL...
PS I thought that this was a conservative pro-2nd Amendment site. Star Traveler is repeating blatant misinformation and ignoring facts that counter his anti-2nd spewings. That’s not debate, that’s gun-grabber propagandizing. Can we get a ZOT here?!
That's true about this site, but you have to recognize the reality of a situation in that while we have those rights and can defend ourselves -- one can't stop these kinds of things from happening, no matter how many are armed. The element of surprise is always on the side of the perpetrator and he (or she) can always knock off a bunch of people first, before they either kill themselves (as they usually do) or give up or are captured.
That's just the reality of the matter...
And that's a silly process -- to zot someone for discussing an issue... LOL...
So you continue to ignore the specific examples upthread where EXACTLY THAT VERY THING has happened? Gee, there’s a shock. Not.
Nothing has stopped the mass killings from happening. The problem with this sort of thing is that people who are accepted into their community and are apparently hard workers, fine citizens (and so on) -- all of a sudden, do these kinds of mass killings.
Consider the Orlando mass shooting. The guy went back to a place where he worked two years before and shot up the place. Then there is that guy who went to Tualatin to shoot up a place where his estranged wife worked, and did that and shot himself, plus wounding several other people.
The element of surprise and one not expecting it from that sort of person and then how quick they do it -- it's over in short order.
If anything, these types of things seem to be on the increase.
And, in fact, these kinds of mass killings from the general public (where they've got some sort of unknown problem that no one can see) is hard to detect ahead of time.
On the other hand, an organized terrorist group that will make plans for a terrorist attack and organize the whole thing ahead of time has a higher chance of being stopped ahead of time, than the simple "American mass killing" does. There are the adequate warning signs as there would be for a planned terrorist attack.
So, you'll never stop these kinds of mass killings. The element of surprise is in their favor, people cannot react fast enough even if they are armed and when they stop (or are stopped by someone else) several people are dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.