Posted on 11/11/2009 10:40:24 AM PST by Star Traveler
The author also omitted some instances where the killing was cut short by a private citizen with a conceal carry permit who either shot or confronted the shooter and limited the casualty count. Such instances at churches and court houses in Texas demonstrate the value of private citizens being armed for self-defense.
Back suring the Clinton admin several people were killed in a shootng in Washington state.
Clinton decried this as proof we needed more gun control.
On the same daay, the same number of people were kidnapped from Arkansas and were murdered by having their throats cut in Missouri. No gun involve. No mention in the news. No crys for “gun control”.
One man was arrested and the only proof was some celophane wrapped money which was sent to the FBI to have the wrapping checked for fingerprints. The clutzes at the FBI instead opened the package, destroyed the wrapping and tested the money. Evidence destroyed-—the perp walked.
I do take one lesson from the Charles Whitman incident that seems to have been obscured by time - in that case firearms in the hands of civilians pinned the perpetrator down while the police approached him. On modern campuses that wouldn't be possible. We didn't learn that lesson, we ignored it.
All the gun control laws in the world, and even the destruction of every handgun in existence (if that were even possible), would not have prevented that incident. People who decide to become killers - for whatever reason - will kill with whatever is available to them. The question is: “Do we want to mandate that everybody present must be an unarmed potential victim?” The gun-controllers answer “yes”.
People who label mass slaughter by Islamic terrorists as a “tragedy” need to be japslapped every single time they utter the phrase.
No, in this case it was an Islamic terrorist killing. And in other cases in America, there are - as you said, "killings for hire, killings during crimes committed for other reasons."
As I said up above (and elsewhere on other postings) this particular one was related to Islamic terrorism, but it was also in a different category than the organized Islamic terrorism from certain terrorist groups.
And while the Islamic terrorism is something that goes on in this country, at the same time, so does the "mass killings" that we've seen with our own people in this country shooting other people in this country, as in the list up above.
Now, even though Islamic terrorism is a big threat and something to definitely combat, I would say that our own people have killed more of our own people than terrorists have.
And, in this case, in the Fort Hood shootings, it turns out that this guy was one of our own people, too -- having been born and raised in this country. So, he was engaging in Islamic terrorism having been a home-grown variety, coming from within our own country, having lived here all his life.
And yet - these statistical anomolies notwithstanding - in every state where the right to concealed carry has been expanded the rate of violent crime and murder has gone down. The highest per capita murder and violent crime rates are in heavily democrat states and cities that have the most draconian anti-gun laws. Mass shootings are much more likely to occur in locations where people are not allowed to carry guns. You never hear of this type of thing happening in a gun store or at a shooting range. I wonder why that is?
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...
I’m curious - especially given your profile page - as to why you seem to be arguing that this is a problem of the availability of guns. Has somebody hijacked your account.
Funny how Colin Ferguson shooting 25 people in 1993 is avoided.
The bottom line: mass murderers choose their victims carefully, they are insane, but not stupid. All mass shootings mentioned in the OP happened in “gun-free zones”. Question: what solution would work better
1. Expand the “gun-free zones” to entire country.
2. Get rid of “gun-free zones” altogether.
I think that the answer is obvious: remove an incentive to the crime, i.e. stop disarming people capable of defending themselves!
And yet - these statistical anomolies notwithstanding - in every state where the right to concealed carry has been expanded the rate of violent crime and murder has gone down.
I don't have any problem with people carrying to defend themselves. I'm just saying that it's not going to stop the mass killings that we've seen over the years and decades. That's still going to continue and people are still going to get killed in these mass killings.
If you have every last single person carrying, you're still going to have mass killings.
It appears to me that some other solution is going to have to be sought out to prevent mass killings. I don't know what that is -- but I do know that carrying to defend yourself (while that is fine and good by itself), is not going to stop these mass killings.
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.
I think that the answer is obvious: remove an incentive to the crime, i.e. stop disarming people capable of defending themselves!
You can arm all the people you want and the mass killings are not going to stop. The people who do them seem to be willing to kill themselves in the first place (i.e., the death of the perpetrator is of no concern to themselves). They can do a lot of killing very quickly before they kill themselves and/or are killed. That's just the way it is.
No amount of arming everyone is going to stop these kinds of mass killings.
But, as I said, I don't have a problem with carrying to defend yourself. I'm just saying that this "methodology" is not going to stop these kinds of mass killings.
This was Murder by Political Correctness.
The higher ups who ignored for the sake of diversity and then the WH that has intentionally sought to cover this up for the sake of diversity are no different than the lunatic who pulled the trigger.
As I said, I don’t have a problem with people carrying to defend themselves. I’m just saying that the public, with less training has less ability to effectively stop mass shootings/killings than even soldiers do, from their experience and training and combat.
But, again, that’s fine by me to have people carry to defend themselves. Just don’t expect the mass shootings to stop.
This guy murdered Americans for not being Muslim. That means he's not an American - no matter where he grew up or lived or the uniform he wore - he was a traitor to the very essence of his country. Americans, by definition, do not kill other people for being different. Acceptance of difference is what being American is all about.
...this particular one was related to Islamic terrorism, but it was also in a different category than the organized Islamic terrorism from certain terrorist groups.
"Related"? "Different category?" According to who - you? Or according to the guy standing there calmly pumping bullets into a pregnant woman, or the wounded as they try to crawl away, or the other unarmed Americans you think he sees as his fellow countrymen?
What planet do you live on? He is a Muslim who takes seriously the Islamic command of Jihad - the exact same command given ALL Muslims the world over, without any exception whatsoever, and responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of people, and the enslavement of millions of women. These people consider themselves Muslims first, and every other association second. That's what they say about themselves. Who are you to tell them they are wrong about who they are and what they're doing?
Or do you think they are too stupid to be able to explain themselves?
I wonder how many of these shootings occurred in a place where guns weren’t allowed.
Those dang guns - always breaking the rules!
You were saying ...
No amount of arming everyone is going to stop these kinds of mass killings.
Fundamentally wrong. If the perp want to be killed - it can be done swiftly by armed victims, therefore avoiding MASS casualties.
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.