Because, as I said, you can’t compare children cowering in closets and bathrooms in terror to urban warfare, and then draw these contrived conclusions based on your misguided connection. It’s not the same thing, and it doesn’t matter how many times you keep repeating “rapid dominance doctrine”. That's because you're an idiot who refuses to listen: let me put it to you in a way my 13 year old little sister would understand:
- You're sitting in school, someone busts in and starts shooting; this is rapid-dominance.
- You're sleeping at home, someone busts in the door pointing weapons at you and shouting; this is rapid-dominance.
- You're sitting at home, possibly with suspicion that something's going to happen [possibly not], someone busts in the door and starts shooting; this is rapid-dominance.
Putting yourself in the position of the 'victim' of the rapid-dominance, what is your reaction? Likely: Disorientation and confusion; possibly: anger.
Putting yourself in the position of the 'perpetrator', what is your reaction?
Can you count on the 'victim's' reaction? To a large degree, yes.
So then; how are they not in the same category?
You can keep repeating the same nonsense over and over, but you’re not accomplishing anything. We know how the victims reacted in Newton, so it’s a simple fact that your conclusions about how they should have reacted just don’t hold up. The reason is simple: you are drawing conclusions based on an imagined scenario that obviously isn’t in line with the reality of how things happened.
You’re obsessing, trying to get me to admit that there is some valid basis to some component of your imaginary scenario, when the entire thing is easily seen to be faulty, if you are not emotionally devoted to believing in it in the first place.