PDA

View Full Version : In wake of Ft. Hood Santa Barbara paper says gun control doesn't work


rp55
11-10-2009, 12:25 PM
I thought Santa Barbara was a hotbed of liberalism. Is there hope?

The Daily Sound (http://www.thedailysound.com/opinion/111009rot)

So much for gun control

There is little to salvage from last week’s mass murder at Fort Hood, Texas, but there are some stark realizations this heartbreaking horror exposes. One is the wishful but mistaken notion that such incidents can be prevented by laws prohibiting or strictly restricting access to firearms. The Second Amendment not with standing, U.S. military bases prohibit unauthorized personnel from carrying firearms on base. Access to military weapons is carefully restricted and weapons are secured in armories.

Never the less, even within the well regulated conditions of a military base, a man was able to acquire and conceal two powerful personal handguns which he used to murder 13 people and wound dozens of others.

The argument that a prohibition against firearms will eliminate the possession of firearms by anyone is clearly refuted by the ample empirical evidence that prohibition simply does not succeed in its intended objective when the subject of the prohibition is something that enough of the population wants. No matter how draconian the restrictions or dire the legal consequences prohibition is defeated by desire.

Prostitution, booze, and drugs are or have been prohibited by law with no appreciable effect on eliminating any of them. In fact, illegal drugs consistently find their way into prisons—the most secured, restrictive institutions in society. Obviously, if prison inmates can gain access to drugs, and military base personnel can gain access to guns, in spite of heavy security and strict prohibitions, how will laws prevent anyone from having either?

While good people are rightly concerned and alarmed by the lethal violence visited on society through the device of firearms, rational people understand that there is no legal magic wand that will abolish such violence simply by prohibiting possession of the device. People who want guns will get them. People who want to harm others will do so, but the amount of harm they can do could be reduced if more people were armed rather than disarmed.

If among the murdered and wounded at Fort Hood any had been armed, the slaughter would have been less. The gunman would have been confronted by people who could defend themselves rather than by helpless victims. Free people should not only be able to arm themselves, they should be able to carry those arms on their person as they do their cell phones. Self defense is among the most basic of human and civil rights.

Those who fear a dangerous wild-west scenario if citizens were freely armed should consider that there is danger now. There are not enough armed police to be everywhere all the time, and anyone can be caught in a situation as occurred at Fort Hood. Most people who drive cars do not drive them recklessly, and most people who own a gun do not go about shooting others without just cause.

Another realization coming out of the Fort Hood incident is that twisted minds often wrap themselves around fixed ideologies. That, however, does not prove a cause and effect relationship between a particular ideology and the detrimental behavior of those with twisted minds.

The murdering major at Fort Hood was a devout Muslim who was heard to shout “God is Great” as he mercilessly and methodically shot his victims. Not unexpectedly, after the shootings there soon followed threats against mosques and condemnations of Muslims.

If murder and savagery can be eliminated by eradicating a religion, then not one but nearly all religions, and many political ideologies, must be eliminated as well. Damaged psyches, weak minds, and evil souls embrace and employ ideologies to justify their heinous actions and to salve their psychological pain. These disordered minds can be found within the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish faiths. There are also practicing paranoids preaching hyper-patriotic versions of political ideologies who can become mass murders for the cause. Recall Timothy McVeigh.

Eliminating entire categories of people based on their religious or political beliefs will be ineffective in riding society of senseless violence. Savagery and mayhem lurk under even the thickest veneer of civilization. Wackos will simply blend in to what ever social milieu is available and pervert any ideology to validate their homicidal violence.

Unless and until science can develop a flawless wacko-meter that detects these aberrant personalities, they will always be moving unidentified among us. Ironically, the perpetrator of the Fort Hood massacre was a psychiatrist, the closest thing we have to a wacko-meter. So, maybe we should round up all the shrinks.

There are no ready remedies to prevent further incidents as occurred at Fort Hood, but there is awareness, for those with open minds, that police state restrictions or targeted pogroms would not only be ineffective, they would undermine the very essence of freedom and justice upon which this nation was founded, and eventually make victims of us all.

SDS-Ruger
11-10-2009, 12:39 PM
Wow i can't believe that came from a cal. news paper. This should be sent up to sac. for the current legal, to show more people believe in the fact the more people that are armed the safer we would be.

Harley
11-10-2009, 12:41 PM
Free people should not only be able to arm themselves, they should be able to carry those arms on their person as they do their cell phones. Self defense is among the most basic of human and civil rights.

I agree.

Bug Splat
11-10-2009, 12:41 PM
Nice write up. Thanks for posting :)

Doug L
11-10-2009, 12:41 PM
I thought Santa Barbara was a hotbed of liberalism. Is there hope?

The Daily Sound (http://www.thedailysound.com/opinion/111009rot)

So much for gun control

The first half of the article was spot on.

Unfortunately, the author went off the rails beginning with the "Another realization coming out of the Fort Hood incident..." paragraph. From that point to the end of the article, the conclusions just don't jibe with reality.

Steyrlp10
11-10-2009, 12:43 PM
Thanks for sharing... it's a start!

Fjold
11-10-2009, 12:47 PM
From Santa Barbara that is shocking.

choprzrul
11-10-2009, 12:52 PM
Amazing and yet very welcome. I live only 90 minutes north of Santa Barbara and would have never dreamed of seeing this type of position in the news.

stagman
11-10-2009, 12:56 PM
Huh? What? Is this the twighlight zone? :shock:

Great article though...

double_action
11-10-2009, 12:57 PM
Go Randy!

jjperl
11-10-2009, 1:17 PM
wow... I'm a little surprised. Nice article though.

Nose Nuggets
11-10-2009, 1:30 PM
i am blown away that this article actually made it into print. I applaud the author, and the publication!

imho, the OP bolded the wrong line. i find this far more on point;

"Free people should not only be able to arm themselves, they should be able to carry those arms on their person as they do their cell phones. Self defense is among the most basic of human and civil rights."

OlderThanDirt
11-10-2009, 1:37 PM
Its a start, but the Daily Sound isn't exactly a mainstream newspaper and the article is located in the opinion section.

Chris M
11-10-2009, 1:46 PM
People who want to harm others will do so, but the amount of harm they can do could be reduced if more people were armed rather than disarmed.

:eek:

I'm speechless.

Roadrunner
11-10-2009, 2:03 PM
People who want to harm others will do so, but the amount of harm they can do could be reduced if more people were armed rather than disarmed.

What an incredible epiphany to come out of the mouth of a California journalist. See, there really is a God.

dfletcher
11-10-2009, 2:25 PM
I'm surprised, glad it's out there and agree with the conclusion. But I think the author presumes a greater degree of difficulty involved in getting on the base than actually exists, especially for anyone in uniform. In addition to being surprised that most soldiers on a base aren't armed, I think most people would be surprised how easy it is to get on a stateside military base.

Californio
11-10-2009, 2:42 PM
He is a Libertarian and was CFO of the Santa Barbara News-Press for 23 years before being fired by the current owner.

SuperSet
11-10-2009, 2:47 PM
That guy is more well spoken than most of the nationally-known 2A figureheads. NRA needs to hire that guy.

pdq_wizzard
11-10-2009, 3:06 PM
The first half of the article was spot on.

Unfortunately, the author went off the rails beginning with the "Another realization coming out of the Fort Hood incident..." paragraph. From that point to the end of the article, the conclusions just don't jibe with reality.

I think we went off the rails to prove a point, I read a lot of tongue in cheek into the last part. (being absurd to show absurdity)

The Director
11-10-2009, 3:07 PM
Buy that man a beer!!!!

Doug L
11-10-2009, 3:32 PM
...I read a lot of tongue in cheek into the last part. (being absurd to show absurdity)

Interesting perception. I understand what you're saying, but I didn't sense any tongue-in-cheek or obvious absurdity in the author's intent.

HowardW56
11-10-2009, 3:45 PM
A dose of reality for Santa Barbara...

Untamed1972
11-10-2009, 3:46 PM
This incident and the sentiments of this article make me think of the comments of the one judge in the Nordkye decision I think it was that talked about the need of the people (the militia if you will) to be able to be armed for immediate response to attacks like in Mumbai. How is this incident at Ft. Hood any different? If anything it's made even more absurdly nessecary by the fact that is WAS ON a military base.

So perhaps if/when more such incidents occur public sentiment will start to change. One thing would really drive that point home is if one of these incidents were to be halted by a person with a CCW or who was legally LOC'ing.

The ability to act IMMEDIATELY in defense of self and others is the ONLY option.

bodger
11-10-2009, 3:48 PM
Nice!

Someone should forward that to the Brady Bunch and every anti-gun asshat in the CA assembly. Just to see if there might be a response and get this out into a broader exposure.

The article makes the point we gunnies already know.

I gotta believe, if there had been at least one person near this Ft. Hood incident at the outset who had a CCW, lives might have been saved.

"When seconds count..."

Maltese Falcon
11-10-2009, 3:50 PM
Excellent..I am going to save this.

tenpercentfirearms
11-10-2009, 5:58 PM
Praise God I am reading this on my laptop in Jamba Juice in Bakersfield right now. Not only do I have my cell phone, but my Glock too. Start a jihad in Jamba Juice and see where it gets you.

Maestro Pistolero
11-10-2009, 6:17 PM
Start a jihad in Jamba Juice and see where it gets you.

Pulp Fiction. Sorry, couldn't stop myself.

Hogxtz
11-10-2009, 6:18 PM
Thanks for posting that article. It absolutley made my day. I would like to see a copy sent to De Leon, and than ask for his public response about armed citizens and gun rights.

C-Los
11-10-2009, 11:48 PM
Praise God I am reading this on my laptop in Jamba Juice in Bakersfield right now. Not only do I have my cell phone, but my Glock too. Start a jihad in Jamba Juice and see where it gets you.

HAHA!!!

Cokebottle
11-10-2009, 11:59 PM
Wow... and from one of the more liberal cities in the state!

That's amazing.

7x57
11-11-2009, 12:00 AM
Praise God I am reading this on my laptop in Jamba Juice in Bakersfield right now.


Wes is religious? :eek:


Not only do I have my cell phone, but my Glock too. Start a jihad in Jamba Juice and see where it gets you.

Jihadis! In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, your hour has come. The Christian dog has revealed himself, his brains no doubt addled by too much Western pornography and slothful living. Be sure to execute all red-headed Infidels before carrying out any other of "Operation Jamba Juice"'s objectives, lest you become shaheed too soon.

Repeat: kill the red-heads first, and may Allah guide your holy mission.























:D

7x57

halifax
11-11-2009, 6:10 AM
I'm not sure how to feel about this one. I detest when the other side uses a "still fresh" horrific tragedy to further their own agenda. I'd have preferred to read this article in about a month or so.

Good article in my opinion but very inappropriate timing.

Ford8N
11-11-2009, 6:27 AM
That guy is more well spoken than most of the nationally-known 2A figureheads. NRA needs to hire that guy.

I concur.....and I thought I was the only who noticed that. Cold dead hands is not the correct message.

dirtnap
11-11-2009, 7:55 AM
Just make sure we do as much to support this article/writer as we do to attack those we disagree with. Send the guy some nice email and comments please, what a refreshing change!

Cokebottle
11-11-2009, 9:50 AM
I'm not sure how to feel about this one. I detest when the other side uses a "still fresh" horrific tragedy to further their own agenda. I'd have preferred to read this article in about a month or so.

Good article in my opinion but very inappropriate timing.
I agree, but honestly, time does not lessen the tragedy, particularly for the friends and families, but it does lessen the public impact of comments in a society that has the attention span of the time a TV show runs between commercial breaks.
That same column written 6 months from now would have gotten zero exposure, and potentially even not been caught by a Calgunner.

The tragedy of the Reagan/Brady shooting has driven the primary anti-gun push in this country for the last 25 years.
Fascinating that the main push has been against "high power" and centerfire weapons when Hinkley used an RG-14 .22 revolver.
A lot of people even downplayed the shooting due to the small caliber, but we very nearly lost our new President.

Cokebottle
11-11-2009, 10:01 AM
Just make sure we do as much to support this article/writer as we do to attack those we disagree with. Send the guy some nice email and comments please, what a refreshing change!
Agreed... comment left on the column.

Californio
11-11-2009, 10:02 AM
It was a very good article but does nothing to stop the Socialist Carpetbaggers. Another law/tax against the law abiding majority. Let's see, Vet office visit $55.00+ special license $10.00. $65.00 a year tax on people that don't cause the problems in the first place.

BOARD OKs THE BIG FIX : County spay/neuter ordinance for cats, dogs passes 3-1

NORA K. WALLACE, NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER
November 11, 2009 6:57 AM
After hearing more than 50 speakers tell often heart-wrenching stories about working in shelters, seeing pet overpopulation or wanting control of their own animals, the county Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a controversial ordinance requiring residents to spay or neuter their dogs and cats.

The issue drew more than 100 people to the Santa Maria hearing room of the board, and about half those in attendance spoke. Supporters of the ordinance were decked out with yellow ribbon armbands, while those opposed to the proposed law wore bright green stickers stating "No MSN," against "mandatory spay neutering."

Under the ordinance guidelines, dog and cat owners would be required to have their animals spayed or neutered unless they discuss the objectives and purposes with a veterinarian and obtain a certificate from the vet to purchase an Unaltered Animal License.

A $10 surcharge would be affixed for each unaltered animal license sold, with funds used to subsidize spaying and neutering for those with financial hardship. A cat license will also be required for all unaltered cats.

The ordinance passed on a 3-to-1 vote. Fourth District Supervisor Joni Gray had to leave to travel to a meeting in Orange County. Fifth District Supervisor Joe Centeno was vehemently opposed to the ordinance.

This week's meeting follows a similar gathering in Santa Barbara last week. About 50 people spoke at that meeting; those speakers were not allowed to repeat their comments this week.

Each of the supervisors gave credit the the voluminous number of speakers, many of whom stayed for the entire discussion, which took more than 31/2 hours.

"I am absolutely convinced, without a reasonable doubt, that this ordinance is a good thing," said 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf. "It's not perfect. I think it's reasonable. There is some common sense. Someone said it was innovative. I do believe it will reach the goals that we want."

Ms. Wolf refuted the contention by many opponents who charged that the provisions were mandatory, and gave animal owners no leeway.

"People are saying it's mandatory," Ms. Wolf said. "That's not what we have here. It does say owners of dogs and cats 'shall act responsibly' and the spaying and neutering of dogs and cats is recommended. It is not mandatory."

The county is hoping to find some way to offset the enormous number of stray and abandoned dogs and cats in county shelters, many of whom must be euthanized.

The ordinance also includes the adoption of a Responsible Pet Owner Pilot Program. Onetime revenues would be used to expand temporary staffing in county animal services for outreach and education on licensing and the benefits of spaying and neutering. The ordinance also has a $250 penalty for having an unaltered animal without certification. Additionally, there is an exemption for owners of some agricultural parcels.

Mr. Centeno said he said he does not philosophically agree with someone telling him what to do with his pet.

"The ordinance is pretty punitive on these folks we say are responsible pet owners," said Mr. Centeno, who mentioned that his Jack Russell terrier sleeps alongside his pillow.

The ordinance, he said, does were are sowww many abandoned dogs and cats.

"I feel very, very bad we're going down this path," said Mr. Centeno. "I don't think we're going to get the solution we want to this issue with this ordinance."

Third District Supervisor Doreen Farr lobbied for an exemption for rural farms and ranches in the AG-2-40 zoning.

All the supervisors, she said, "want this to work in some way. If it doesn't, I'll be one of the first people to say, 'We need to change this.' "

The issue has been percolating in the county for more than a year. A Spay-Neuter Task Force was established to study the issue, and its members are still clearly divided. Many of its members spoke Tuesday.

Task force member Mikki Capparelli-Lally was opposed to any "mandatory" wording.

"What harm will this ordinance do? It will increase shelter intake and the euthanization rate," she said.

Fellow member Linda Greco said that 10,000 animals went into the county's three shelters last year, and 25 percent were euthanized.

"No ordinance will please all," she said. "The task force worked hard to customize the ordinance. It's simple, fair and encourages compliance and responsibility. Will it fix everything? No. But doing nothing changes nothing."

e-mail: nwallace@newspress.com

bomb_on_bus
11-11-2009, 11:16 AM
This is just like the liberal mind. If something that they pushed for backfires in their faces they just run around telling everyone "oh whoops looks like we need to get whatever it was that we outlawed back and fast!"

What still makes me mad as hell is our great messiah didn't even mention the guys name who was responsible for the shooting during the cerimony.

Even worse is the guy was in contact with a radical muslim imam over what he should do and even had made threats to superiors and collegues that something like this would happen if he had to go to war against fellow muslims.

If ya ask me things like this let the muslim terrorists know that they have a upper hand against us even on our own soil.

We are giving the terrorists the kind of fuel to keep them fighting strong when our own prezident "the great messiah" sweeps the guys name under the rug.

I would have never dreamed of the day when american soldiers on their own base could be gunned odwn by a crazed person and didn't have the means to defend themselves. It took outside law enforcement agencies to actually take the suspect down. All this is even more fuel for the terrorists home and abroad.

Lastly don't forget the mans name behind this attack as Obama wants us to do. The Islamic radical who killed innocent people on his countries own soil vs. going to war and defending the lives of our civilians and soldiers.

That mans name is Nidal Malik Hasan.

How many more killings is it going to take for the country to open its eyes and see what is going on with the evils around us.

mmartin
11-11-2009, 11:46 AM
What still makes me mad as hell is our great messiah didn't even mention the guys name who was responsible for the shooting during the cerimony.

I understand the reason for that is quite specific to military court proceedings... since the shooter is military, the POTUS is in effect one of his commanding officers, and addressing him specifically would be public commentary on the guilt of the accused by his superior officer. creates a public prejudgement of the case by those resposible for seeing to justice and a fair trial. causes legal havoc when trying to prosecute him in martial court settings. if he were being charged in civilian court, it wouldn't have mattered.

anyway, that's what I've heard given as a reason for the generality of the references.

megan

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 12:43 PM
This is just like the liberal mind. If something that they pushed for backfires in their faces they just run around telling everyone "oh whoops looks like we need to get whatever it was that we outlawed back and fast!"

What still makes me mad as hell is our great messiah didn't even mention the guys name who was responsible for the shooting during the cerimony.

Even worse is the guy was in contact with a radical muslim imam over what he should do and even had made threats to superiors and collegues that something like this would happen if he had to go to war against fellow muslims.

If ya ask me things like this let the muslim terrorists know that they have a upper hand against us even on our own soil.

We are giving the terrorists the kind of fuel to keep them fighting strong when our own prezident "the great messiah" sweeps the guys name under the rug.

I would have never dreamed of the day when american soldiers on their own base could be gunned odwn by a crazed person and didn't have the means to defend themselves. It took outside law enforcement agencies to actually take the suspect down. All this is even more fuel for the terrorists home and abroad.

Lastly don't forget the mans name behind this attack as Obama wants us to do. The Islamic radical who killed innocent people on his countries own soil vs. going to war and defending the lives of our civilians and soldiers.

That mans name is Nidal Malik Hasan.

How many more killings is it going to take for the country to open its eyes and see what is going on with the evils around us.

Not only that, but when the President, in his speech at Fort Hood, says things like :

"It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy..." I say it's not hard to understand at all as most people DO understand it. Why can't you Mr. President?

"But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; " Not True...We all know what faith justifies it... and so do you, Mr. President.

"no just and loving God looks upon them with favor." Their God does. How about a trip to Paradise? Get a clue Mr. President.

"And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next." There could never be enough justice in this world for this man, but in the next? Let's see now.... ump-teen virgins? Sure, that's justice all right

It made me sick to listen to him. Let's call a spade a spade and stop with this politically correct crap and wise up. Talk about a disconnect with the American People...

curtisfong
11-11-2009, 1:03 PM
Not True...We all know what faith justifies it... and so do you, Mr. President.

The power of blind faith is that it can justify any act. Regardless of faith, regardless of act.

macadamizer
11-11-2009, 2:36 PM
Their God does. How about a trip to Paradise? Get a clue Mr. President.

Not to go too far astray, but you do realize that "their God" is the same one that Jews and Christians pray to as well, right?

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 3:49 PM
The power of blind faith is that it can justify any act. Regardless of faith, regardless of act.

This is true, but it has to have a foundation within the faith. Some have a larger foundation than others.

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 3:56 PM
Not to go too far astray, but you do realize that "their God" is the same one that Jews and Christians pray to as well, right?

You did, and yes. Your point?

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 4:05 PM
This is true, but it has to have a foundation within the faith. Some have a larger foundation than others.

I submit to you that many religions have foundations that are plenty large for this sort of thing, including the one that's likely to be yours: Christianity. Or do you think the Crusades didn't happen?

I've known many fundamentalist Christians that thought I was headed straight to hell for not believing the way they believed, and only three hundred years ago they probably would have burned me at the stake for that.

The one theme that seems to be common to all these religions is that the true believers are right and everyone else is wrong, and that makes the true believers morally superior to everyone else. People who believe themselves to be superior to everyone else tend to treat everyone else as subhuman, and the end result is inevitably a lot of pain, suffering, and death.

Be VERY CAREFUL about your self-important generalizations of others -- they can turn you into the very thing you claim to despise.

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 4:19 PM
Be VERY CAREFUL about your self-important generalizations of others --

Self-important? Where did you get that from? I love how people take leaps and see thing that aren't there.
Thanks for the Advice. I Plan to be careful.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 4:47 PM
Self-important? Where did you get that from? I love how people take leaps and see thing that aren't there.


If that's true of me then you have my sincere apologies and I must heed my own advice.

I got it from the apparent implications you drew in your message implicating the religion of Islam as being responsible for the actions of Hasan, combined with the implication in your statement about foundations that Islam is "better" at creating or attracting terrorists than other religions.

Was that not the message you wished to convey?



Thanks for the Advice. I Plan to be careful.And I'll try to be more careful myself.

macadamizer
11-11-2009, 4:52 PM
You did, and yes. Your point?

Simply that if it is "their God" that looks upon them (the "jihadists") in favor after these terrible acts, well, its the same God that looks upon Christians and Jews in favor. So are you saying that all people of faith -- Muslim, Christian and Jew -- support these sorts of terrorist acts?

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 4:57 PM
Anyway, back on topic: it's clear that, no matter what the motivations of an attacker, a well-armed population will at worst take down the attacker much more quickly and thereby minimize the amount of damage he can do.

The article is spot on here, and that part of the message is the one I think needs to be focused on. The other comments it makes are pretty much irrelevant for RKBA, I think.

CSACANNONEER
11-11-2009, 5:08 PM
I thought Santa Barbara was a hotbed of liberalism. Is there hope?



WOW! Either someone with common sense infiltrated SB or they just got the best shipment of buds any hippy has ever seen. Either way, it's nice to see a reporter finally see the light and think outside the mass media box.

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 8:07 PM
If that's true of me then you have my sincere apologies and I must heed my own advice.

I got it from the apparent implications you drew in your message implicating the religion of Islam as being responsible for the actions of Hasan, combined with the implication in your statement about foundations that Islam is "better" at creating or attracting terrorists than other religions.

Was that not the message you wished to convey?


And I'll try to be more careful myself.

Apology accepted and no, I wasn't making a wholesale attack on Islam.

Let me first state that you and I are probably closer in our views than you may think. I know People react instinctively. You re-acted defensively off the top. I have been guilty of that myself. I can only imagine how I would feel if a group hijacked my religion and I was constantly forced to defend it and would feel angry at and betrayed by the people distorting it. On the other hand, it's hard to type "voice inflection", and other more subtle things that give our voice meaning when communicating over the internet. I also sometimes do a poor job of communicating ideas that I want to get across, to boot.:o

I was trying to state the facts in a way that showed how President Obama danced around them to be politically correct . This has to stop. Period. No matter what lense you're looking through. It's that political correctness that may have allowed Hasan to remain in a position to do what he did. Please realize that. You drew other implications. No one is responsible for Hasan's actions but Hasan himself and he made his own choices based (evidently) on his belief systems, as the evidence, so far, seems to show, as skewed as they may have been from main stream Islam.

It's that skewed view that both you and I must be on guard and speak out against.:cheers2:

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 8:14 PM
Anyway, back on topic: it's clear that, no matter what the motivations of an attacker, a well-armed population will at worst take down the attacker much more quickly and thereby minimize the amount of damage he can do.

The article is spot on here, and that part of the message is the one I think needs to be focused on. The other comments it makes are pretty much irrelevant for RKBA, I think.

I agree.:thumbsup: Although the point was Political correctness and allowing CCW's on base and eliminating GFZ's.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 8:48 PM
Apology accepted and no, I wasn't making a wholesale attack on Islam.


Yeah, I certainly see that now. Good thing we all get more than one shot at stating our views here (and opportunities to clarify, etc.)!



Let me first state that you and I are probably closer in our views than you may think. I know People react instinctively. You re-acted defensively off the top.
Yeah, and that's generally not like me at all. :o

Must have something to do with only having got 4 hours of sleep...



I have been guilty of that myself. I can only imagine how I would feel if a group hijacked my religion and I was constantly forced to defend it and would feel angry at and betrayed by the people distorting it.
The funny thing is: I don't subscribe to that religion. But I do have a great deal of sympathy for people who aren't given a fair shake as a result of someone else's preconceived notions.

Political correctness is just another preconceived notion, I think, though it's of a different sort than usual. The problem is that, like other preconceptions, it doesn't allow for facts that may challenge it.

I have a big problem with preconceived notions, and am very embarrassed when I find myself making use of them. :(


On the other hand, it's hard to type "voice inflection", and other more subtle things that give our voice meaning when communicating over the internet. I also sometimes do a poor job of communicating ideas that I want to get across, to boot.:o

I was trying to state the facts in a way that showed how President Obama danced around them to be politically correct . This has to stop. Period. No matter what lense you're looking through. It's that political correctness that may have allowed Hasan to remain in a position to do what he did.
That's entirely possible, and I most definitely agree with the sentiment. The problem with being burned in one way is that it tends to cause you to err in the other direction. We as a society have been burned by discrimination, and now government as an institution goes so far in its efforts to not discriminate that it, well, ends up discriminating! Government hiring practices that actually favor minorities over whites are a perfect example of that. I think Hasan's case may be another such example. Hard to know without actually seeing all the data and being in the shoes of the guys who made the relevant decisions.



Please realize that. You drew other implications. No one is responsible for Hasan's actions but Hasan himself and he made his own choices based (evidently) on his belief systems, as the evidence, so far, seems to show, as skewed as they may have been from main stream Islam.

It's that skewed view that both you and I must be on guard and speak out against.:cheers2:Absolutely agreed.

More to the point, it's important to be mindful and watchful of all that goes on. The greatest danger comes from that which you regard as most familiar. This case with Hasan is a perfect example. He was one of our own, or so we thought. He betrayed us. There may have been signs, and this might have been avoided if we had properly read those signs.

But this might have happened without those signs, too.

And that is why we need to be armed! So that we have some chance of dealing with the threats that we don't know about ahead of time.

I agree: we are almost certainly closer (perhaps by quite a lot!) in our views than one might think by reading this thread. :cheers2:


ETA: did I mention that I really hate political correctness? :puke:

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 9:00 PM
And that is why we need to be armed! So that we have some chance of dealing with the threats that we don't know about ahead of time.

I agree: we are almost certainly closer (perhaps by quite a lot!) in our views than one might think by reading this thread. :cheers2:


ETA: did I mention that I really hate political correctness? :puke:


+ 1001 :D

locosway
11-11-2009, 9:16 PM
It caught on...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 9:56 PM
It caught on...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/

Here, here. I hope the ball keeps rolling and gains momentum. Something good needs to come out of this. In honor of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Mr. Obama, tear down that Regulation!

PonchoTA
11-11-2009, 10:13 PM
IMO, the most poignant remarks in the whole article:
If among the murdered and wounded at Fort Hood any had been armed, the slaughter would have been less. The gunman would have been confronted by people who could defend themselves rather than by helpless victims. Free people should not only be able to arm themselves, they should be able to carry those arms on their person as they do their cell phones. Self defense is among the most basic of human and civil rights.

Those who fear a dangerous wild-west scenario if citizens were freely armed should consider that there is danger now. There are not enough armed police to be everywhere all the time, and anyone can be caught in a situation as occurred at Fort Hood. Most people who drive cars do not drive them recklessly, and most people who own a gun do not go about shooting others without just cause.

Seesm
11-11-2009, 11:22 PM
Armed and informed is always great. Thanks for posting this.

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 6:36 AM
I don't know if I've ever seen a news article with so many typos. :eek: How'd that guy even get a job???

That being said I like the first half. The second half is a bit nutty though.

Meplat
11-12-2009, 1:23 PM
I don't know if I've ever seen a news article with so many typos. :eek: .

You don't read the Fresno Bee do you?:D



That being said I like the first half. The second half is a bit nutty though.

How so 'nutty'?:confused:

socal2310
11-13-2009, 5:47 AM
How so 'nutty'?:confused:

I think it was the author's assertion that there is some kind of association between political/religious ideologies in general and mass shootings that brought about that response. No one is going to argue that there are nutcases out there, but only a small minority of those nutcases will use politics or religion to justify their actions. From what I have seen, the majority of mass shootings are perpetrated by people who feel personally wronged or who's impulse control center has short circuited. Methods tend to vary starkly: lone nutcase with a personal axe to grind - shooting spree; ideologically driven nutcase: bombs, poison gas, a group of like-minded gunmen. If the perpetrator here was actually driven by his religion, he'll be the first in this country (referring again to the style of the attack).

Ryan

IrishPirate
11-13-2009, 5:56 AM
Free people should not only be able to arm themselves, they should be able to carry those arms on their person as they do their cell phones. Self defense is among the most basic of human and civil rights.

beautifully put! this needs to be the focal point of more arguments against gun control.

as for the "second half being nutty". the author was trying to make the point that he wasn't just a religious nut job. Just because he turned to his faith during the killings, that doesn't mean he was driven by it. He points out that afterwards americans were quick to condemn Islam when in reality this guy was crazy and just happened to be Muslim. He makes the point that there are crazy people in every faith, and just because a Muslim goes crazy we all decide to attack the faith, yet no one thought we should have a war on The Vatican or round up all the christians when Oaklahoma blew up, or after Waco Texas. Crazy people exist and we can't tell just by looking at them or by what church they go to, that's his argument. Not once did he say anything about religion and crazy going hand in hand......but i certainly will!!!!

Capt. Speirs
11-13-2009, 9:45 AM
Unfortunately it is going to take more suffering before the ignorant anti gun people change their tune. My hardcore anti gun mother-in-law was easier to convince since she actually has a brain and listened to reason when I present her with a post earthquake scenario with fact quotes for Katrina in a what if situation, I didn't have to answer the question she did with "you would have to arm yourself to survive. +1 for the safe and sane.