Posted on 11/11/2009 10:40:24 AM PST by Star Traveler
And the point that EVERYBODY ELSE is making is that while “THE ANSWER” to these kinds of killings (if by “the answer” you mean some kind of solution that will prevent them from ever starting) DOES NOT EXIST, having a population that includes armed law-abiding citizens is a better solution than relegating the entire population to a bunch of unarmed victims.
If someone is determined to go into an office and kill two or three specific people (plus anybody else who happens to be in the way) and then kill himself, then that group of people is probably going to be dead LONG before law enforcement can arrive. The best chance that anyone in that group has for survival is if one of them other than the intended killer is armed. For that group of intended targets, armed self-defense is the only answer that will save lives. Will it prevent the first shot? No. It may not prevent the second and third shots either. But it might prevent the fourth and fifth shot, and all the other shots that would have taken innocent lives before the cowardly murderer completes his rampage.
And there are literally HUNDREDS of examples where this has been the case.
Actually there are dozens - if not hundreds - of incidents that did not become "mass killings" because an armed citizen intervened and stopped it at simply a killing or multiple killing before it became a "mass killing".
I have no idea what solution Star Traveler would propose (with the possible exception of banning Islam which is obviously not a feasible solution, and would have no impact on the many non-religiously-motivated shooting sprees that were mentioned int he first place).
There are two different things being talked about here. One is the Islamic terrorist and his actions. That can be split up into two parts, too.
The second thing has to do with the long-standing problem that we've had in this country of mass shootings -- where people go into a crowd or the public or some public situation and shoot people indiscriminately, or rather maybe someone in particular and then everyone else around them, too.
For these two different things you can lump them into the same category. I really do not think there is any defense against the "mass shooting" type of killing in the public. If a mass shooting happens, people are going to get killed (in the general public) no matter what. You may stop the guy sooner or later, or he may give himself up -- but nonetheless -- people in the general public are going to get killed anyway.
Now, on the other hand for the Islamic terrorist -- there is a "Part A" and a "Part B" to that matter. And people should distinguish between the two.
Part A is the organized Islamic terrorist. He may work alone or in a group. He'll plan things out and he has a higher chance of getting caught because of this planning. This kind of planning tends to open the door to discovery and many of these types of plans are foiled, and that's good.
On the other hand, as the Muslim population gets to be larger and larger the other kind of terrorist, the "Part B" is going to be more problematic. He's the one who doesn't plan, will usually act on his own and will do so in a relatively quick fashion and not be detected as easily. He may have his own ideas about Islam and hold to them fervently but never act on the terrorism. You can't "get the guy" because of his "ideas" (the way things are now). So, there's nothing you can do about him. But, one day, he "snaps" and he does something on the spur of the moment (relatively speaking) and then engages in some act of terrorism. Whether it's a shooting or a bombing or even crashing a small plane into a building or poisoning people at a restaurant, or shooting up people in a mall -- he'll do it suddenly and be sort of "out of character" (so to speak) for a "hardcore terrorist" -- although he'll be a Muslim believer.
You're going to have a very hard time stopping these other kinds of terrorists.
My solution is to outlaw Islam as a religio-governmental idealogy designed to overthrow this government (and others, too), with force and violence and/or subterfuge (too). It's not a "religion" but a governmental philosophy and idealogy, just like communism is/was (or like Nazism). That's the solution.
There is a now a very real concern that ANY muslim could be a killer. Any muslim doctor, taxi driver, police man, educator, etc., is now suspect.
In terms of Islamic terrorism, this is very true. The military shouldn't let any Muslim in their ranks because of this. No sensitive industry should have Muslims in it. They can flip burgers if they want to (but then again, they might try poisoning the food, too...).
An ironic footnote: Killeen, Texas, the nearest town, to Fort Hood.,was scene of one of the deadliest shooting mass murders in American history. On October 16, 1991, George Hennard drove his Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of Luby's Cafeteria and began shooting, killing 23 people and wounding 20.
This obvious anti-gun author is unaware of one particular salient fact in his account of the Luby's Cafeteria murder: Hennard approached an unarmed lady named Suzanna Hupp and her parents.
Hupp had brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day but had left it in her vehicle because laws in force at the time forbade the carrying of firearms.
According to her later testimony her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him but was gunned down; a short time later, Hupp's mother was also shot and killed.
That was the true irony of that incident..........
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.....
“Nothing has stopped the mass killings from happening.”
Do you mean completely stop them from occurring at all? That’s a strawman. People have been killing each other in large numbers since there were people. If guns are banned, they’ll just use something else. In fact, there are many FAR more effective weapons for mass killing than guns. Guns are just easier (but not by much). No, I won’t go into details besides saying that all you need is a couple hundred bucks and a hardware store to do some awful damage.
Do you mean nothing has stopped a single mass killing from happening? Again, a strawman. Impossible to prove a negative. Will you acknowledge the possibility that at least on PO’d nutjob decided not to go on a shooting spree in, say, a former workplace because he knew there were armed people there? If not, why do politicians get armed security guards?
How about limiting the damage of mass killings? Well, that has happened several times. Here is an example where a plain old citizen with a CCW permit stopped a person bent on mass killing in his tracks: http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/nv-mass-shooting-stopped-by-ccw-permit.html Several other examples were given up thread. Will you at least acknowledge these factual incidents?
If you do, does stopping at least some mass killers in their tracks a good thing? If not, why not? If so, welcome on board with the pro-2nd and pro-carry crowd!
“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.)
VERY well said!
“My solution is to outlaw Islam as a religio-governmental idealogy designed to overthrow this government (and others, too), with force and violence and/or subterfuge (too). It’s not a “religion” but a governmental philosophy and idealogy, just like communism is/was (or like Nazism). That’s the solution.”
You sure did pick an odd starting point - a “blame the guns” article - to get here!
Re-reading the thread, many of your points are factually OK, if a bit odd. (People who want to kill others can’t be completely stopped? Of course.) Do you realize why you got the reaction you did, though? Those same points and twisted versions of them are standard gun-grabber fare. That, and you started the thread with a gun-grabber BS filled article.
It’s confusing, and frankly not very effective.
Ref. #8 and #18.
That was sarcasm. I think she referenced 2 other shootings in Killeen.
My other comment stands. The article is garbage.
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.
I don't.
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.