Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Star Traveler
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.

66 posted on 11/11/2009 12:16:46 PM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: VRWCmember

“By the way, have you realized yet that all of the soldiers at Fort Hood on Thursday were UNARMED?”

I have yet to see her acknowledge that FACT. Classic cognitive dissonance. It’s not just for libtards anymore! (I have been duly informed that Star Traveler is a conservative. She either has a blind spot here or is trying to make some larger point about human nature.)


88 posted on 11/11/2009 2:54:16 PM PST by piytar (Go Away NRC, Steele, Graham, and the rest of the lib-loser GOP. WE'RE TAKING OUR PARTY BACK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson