You should be careful with such statements. The army base has very restrictive regulations of weapons, and in this case, ALL of the victims were UNARMED. Nonsense, I know...
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 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...
You were saying ...
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.
You either have not read my comment or shamlessly perverted it, although I can’t see how. Tell me HOW a bunch of UNARMED youth supposed to defend themselves against that maniac?! Were they trained to deflect bullets? Another point is: would this tragedy have happened at all if the perp was aware of armed people at the place? You seem to be bent on evil guns, but in all of the mass shootings an armed victim (or several) would have stopped the massacre, as it happened many times.
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.
“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?!
Silly man, the argument isn't about the training, its the fact that all the attendees at that ceremony were unarmed as is usually the case wherever such mayhem occurs.........
Please see my prior post which explained why the events at Luby's Cafeteria were allowed to continue without interruption.....
Ahem — in order to defend yourself with a gun, you first mus possess a gun. The amount of training you have doesn’t make any difference. And that’s NOT sarcasm.