Posted on 12/04/2015 10:20:17 AM PST by rey
Mass shootings this year already had stained in blood an American church, a health clinic, a movie theater and schools when on Wednesday another wave of gun violence hit a social services center in San Bernardino, killing 14 people and injuring 21.
The string of shootings — many of them unfolding in live coverage seen in homes and workplaces — have left many in the country deeply unsettled about the gun violence that has become an all-too-routine part of American life.
“It’s becoming commonplace. You check the news; it’s another shooting,†said Harriet Smith, 60, of Sebastopol, who said she was rattled again by the San Bernardino attack, carried out by a heavily armed couple, authorities said, who were later shot dead by police in a ferocious firefight on city streets.
“The safe places are not safe any more,†said Smith, a special education teacher.
For some North Coast residents the violent onslaught — amounting to more than one mass shooting a day this year nationwide, by some counts — has made them more apprehensive about leaving home or gathering with others in places of refuge, commerce, education and entertainment.
Julie and Bill Middleton, who sing in the Occidental Community Choir, said it occurred to them Thursday morning, after reading about the San Bernardino shooting, that the group might want to hire security for its concerts this weekend in the small west county village with no police presence and spotty cellphone coverage.
(Excerpt) Read more at pressdemocrat.com ...
If you are going to hire security, what will security do to ensure your safety? Probably arm themselves. But wait, aren't guns bad?
Nearly every illegal shooting comes to an end as the result of a good person with a firearm.
They remind me of my employee's wife who was concerned that a plane was going to fly into their trailer on 9/11.
Once again the victims in San Bernardino were unarmed sitting ducks. And once again, the moronic leftists want to increase the number of unarmed sitting ducks. Remember this, morons of the left, as the terrorist is busy pulling the trigger, think “police response time.”
The places described as "safe places" by liberals have never been safe. The safest place to be is with someone who has the ability and will to keep you safe.
Completely overlooks the influences of radical islam, mental illness, psychotropic drugs and abuse issues.
The effort is to paint the gun as a subconscious influence that drives people to violence.
CNN was running with that garbage last night.
Meanwhile, I'm a 50 year old man who, for the first time in my life, get a notice from my homeowner's insurance provider regarding changes to my policy regarding terrorist acts.
Is that because dogs are smarter? Or what?
This is hysteria, plain and simple. The odds of being involved in a mass shooting are greater than being struck by lightning, yet no one is suggesting that we never go outside.
That used to mean the Cleveland/Great Lakes area. But I am not familiar with where Occidental might be in northern Ohio. Is it near North Coast Harbor?
Everything in this paper is a propaganda piece. they will run a piece on unemployment being below 5% and right next to it run a piece on being homeless and hungry.
With regard to your insurance, can yo really trust actuarials? They only have numbers supporting them not conjecture.
Occidental is so small, it is ludicrous to think that someone would attack a church there, especially one as liberal as the church would have to be to exist in Occidental. People in igloos probably have more to fear.
Occidental is in the Northern California coastal region.
regarding terrorist acts.
== == ==
Would be interesting to see THEIR definition.
Rush giving it both barrels today giving the Feds’ defn of islam as religion of peace, and therefore can’t be islamic terrorism, ... and so on, resulting in the fatally contorted death spiral we are hearing now.
So the hysteria is what; calls for more gun control, or the resistance to more gun control? It isn’t clear in your response. And your analogy seems upside down. If the odds of being struck by lightning are so low, why would anyone suggest not going outside.
Sorry, but I might just be slow.
My point is the reaction is an hysterical one. They worry about something that is extremely unlikely. They want to limit the number of guns. They want protection from, likely by someone with a gun. It is illogical at best.
If they understand that the best protection against a gun is another gun, as demonstrated by wanting armed protection, then why disarm law abiding people?
“Nearly every illegal shooting comes to an end as the result of a good person with a firearm”
Yes:
Because they really think you can throw the baby out with the bathwater and still keep the baby.
Their argument is that in arming the general public, you also arm crazy people, so the only way to keep guns out of crazy people's hands is to ban guns for everyone.
Except of course, that the pesky 2nd amendment stands in their way. But that's only a few more lesbian law professors appointed to the Supreme Court away for being turned on its head.
We need to argue that we--that is, the 99% that are not crazy--are NOT giving up our right to defend ourselves, as that puts our lives in mortal danger, but we also need to help crazy people get "help".
That can start by committing the Leftwing whackos to mental asylums, for one.
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.