PDA

View Full Version : Will Fort Hood shooting help repeal AB962 ?


Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 9:15 AM
I was wondering if this incident will help the effort to repeal AB962 gain more traction and/or support from our legislators? What would the logical approach / rational be?

Opinions?

Glock22Fan
11-11-2009, 9:17 AM
Why should it?

Generally atrocities like Fort Hood lead to more laws, not fewer.

The likes of us recognize the logic in that article in the Santa Barbara paper, anti-gun legislators don't and are whipped to a frenzy by the suggestion that more weapons in the right hands leads to less crime.

professionalcoyotehunter
11-11-2009, 9:17 AM
:iagree:

galekowitz
11-11-2009, 9:35 AM
I could hear the anti gun knee jerk an hour after the shooting. Federal high cap mag ban was being discussed that night. While the anti gun mafia has control they have the ability to twist this horrible incident any way they see fit. Federal Ammo and magazine restrictions are coming the second the health care discussion ends.

reidnez
11-11-2009, 10:10 AM
Of course not. The usual "anti" media-outlets are already trumpeting this as evidence that we need more laws. See this article, which is thick with emotional "Think of the children!" outcry and completely devoid of any rational proposals or supporting evidence...other than "ban handguns! They're scary!" Fortunately, the vast majority of the comments throw up the BS flag if that's any gauge of public opinion. Of course, public opinion and rationality both have precious few ties to most legislation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/fort-hood-reminds-us-our_b_349921.html

As a few comments on the article bring up, completely absent is the fact that Canadians can own handguns. In fact, their firearms ownership rate is pretty comparable to that of the U.S. Michael Moore said as much in "Bowling for Columbine."

Nowhere is the fact mentioned that if this had occurred in a combat zone--where all troops are required to be armed at all times--there is a pretty high likelihood that the shooter would have been put down long before he had the chance to get off 100 rounds and kill a dozen people--and that's assuming he'd be foolhardy enough to try it in the first place. With several hundred armed and trained people in the room, someone would have reacted. Instead, those defenseless soldiers had to cower under chairs and shield each other with their bodies until an incredibly brave civilian cop showed up.

Not to mention Switzerland, with an assault rifle in almost every home. :eek:

Nor Brazil, where firearms are largely illegal but which is one of the worst countries on earth for firearms-related murder, robbery, and kidnapping.

The truth is, this attack has nothing to do with the broader crime and gun violence issues in the country. I can't even fathom how they're being equated. The guy was a Jihadist. Not a burned-out PTSD'd soldier. Not a common thug who kills a gas station attendant in the process of robbing her. A Jihadist.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 10:43 AM
The truth is, this attack has nothing to do with the broader crime and gun violence issues in the country. I can't even fathom how they're being equated. The guy was a Jihadist. Not a burned-out PTSD'd soldier. Not a common thug who kills a gas station attendant in the process of robbing her. A Jihadist.

Yep. Which means the deterrents that would come from common LOC wouldn't have worked on him. For people such as that guy, the only real option left on the table is to somehow arrange the situation such that he gets taken down as fast as possible. And that can't happen unless most people are armed, whether via LOC or CCW.

reidnez
11-11-2009, 11:58 AM
I also want to add that I really hope this tragedy doesn't lead to discrimination against Muslims in uniform; they are truly an asset to our national defense. When I served, I knew a Sgt. working in Intel who was a Muslim, and he collected a whole lot of valuable info while deployed precisely because of his faith--the locals were comfortable talking to him and not the others. He believed very strongly, and I believed him as well, that the fact that he was a Muslim and could relate to local people allowed him to do his job better and thus save American lives. At the same time, he had to endure a LtCol who told him he "didn't belong."

Though not nearly as extreme, it makes me think back to the Japanese-Americans who proudly served even as their own families were locked up in camps at home. I can't imagine the kind of pain and anguish that must have caused. If that's not proof of loyalty, I don't know what is.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 1:15 PM
I also want to add that I really hope this tragedy doesn't lead to discrimination against Muslims in uniform; they are truly an asset to our national defense. When I served, I knew a Sgt. working in Intel who was a Muslim, and he collected a whole lot of valuable info while deployed precisely because of his faith--the locals were comfortable talking to him and not the others. He believed very strongly, and I believed him as well, that the fact that he was a Muslim and could relate to local people allowed him to do his job better and thus save American lives. At the same time, he had to endure a LtCol who told him he "didn't belong."

Though not nearly as extreme, it makes me think back to the Japanese-Americans who proudly served even as their own families were locked up in camps at home. I can't imagine the kind of pain and anguish that must have caused. If that's not proof of loyalty, I don't know what is.

Yep. The bottom line is that some people appear to be making the false logical leap that if A implies B, then B must imply A. As applied here, their thinking appears to be that if a small group of highly fanatical killers are all Muslim, then most or all Muslims must be highly fanatical killers ("Their book even says there will be rewards for that! After all, all subscribers to all religions believe everything in their religious text in the most literal sense, right?" :rolleyes: ).

It may be that Islam as a religion is more attractive to the type of person who likes to go on suicidal killing rampages, but that alone isn't nearly sufficient reason to condemn the entire population who subscribes to that religion. There are many reasons a given person might subscribe to a given religion, and the bits that appeal to suicidal killers are probably at the bottom of the list of those reasons. The primary reason is almost certainly the same reason that almost any given person subscribes to any given religion: their upbringing.

The Sargent you referred to is an existence proof that you simply can't shoehorn people into such simple boxes. Kinda like the whole "liberal" versus "conservative" thing, actually...

It's important to call a spade a spade. Just be sure that it's not really something else that you're calling a spade...

coolusername2007
11-11-2009, 1:25 PM
I also want to add that I really hope this tragedy doesn't lead to discrimination against Muslims in uniform; they are truly an asset to our national defense.

Good luck with that hope. What was the old saying in VietNam? Those that run are VC, those that don't run are well trained VC. Keep your head on a swivel.

Sleepy1988
11-11-2009, 4:32 PM
Of course not. The usual "anti" media-outlets are already trumpeting this as evidence that we need more laws. See this article, which is thick with emotional "Think of the children!" outcry and completely devoid of any rational proposals or supporting evidence...other than "ban handguns! They're scary!" Fortunately, the vast majority of the comments throw up the BS flag if that's any gauge of public opinion. Of course, public opinion and rationality both have precious few ties to most legislation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/fort-hood-reminds-us-our_b_349921.html

As a few comments on the article bring up, completely absent is the fact that Canadians can own handguns. In fact, their firearms ownership rate is pretty comparable to that of the U.S. Michael Moore said as much in "Bowling for Columbine."

Nowhere is the fact mentioned that if this had occurred in a combat zone--where all troops are required to be armed at all times--there is a pretty high likelihood that the shooter would have been put down long before he had the chance to get off 100 rounds and kill a dozen people--and that's assuming he'd be foolhardy enough to try it in the first place. With several hundred armed and trained people in the room, someone would have reacted. Instead, those defenseless soldiers had to cower under chairs and shield each other with their bodies until an incredibly brave civilian cop showed up.

Not to mention Switzerland, with an assault rifle in almost every home. :eek:

Nor Brazil, where firearms are largely illegal but which is one of the worst countries on earth for firearms-related murder, robbery, and kidnapping.

The truth is, this attack has nothing to do with the broader crime and gun violence issues in the country. I can't even fathom how they're being equated. The guy was a Jihadist. Not a burned-out PTSD'd soldier. Not a common thug who kills a gas station attendant in the process of robbing her. A Jihadist.

Because the attack was committed by a member of a protected class, most of the media already support gun control, so they focus on that to draw attention away from the true cause of the incident.

The deception they engage in is a crime.

ErikTheRed
11-11-2009, 4:51 PM
Political correctness is killing innocent Americans. While it may be true that not ALL Muslims are terrorists, it is also true that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims. That fact alone is reason enough to be extra-cautious of Muslims. To do otherwise is a fool's errand. So, to those of you who would make the point that we shouldn't put extra scrutiny on Muslims within our society simply because they're Muslim, I ask...... why not? This is the group in which the greatest threat exists. You would prefer to ignore obvious danger? Instead, our media and society is in a constant state of anti-Christianism. Ummmm, whens the last time you heard of a Christian terrorist blowing up a restaurant or violently murdering people in the Name of Jesus Christ? This is the mental disorder known as liberal political correctness. They would rather cast out Christians because we're anti-abortion and anti-gay. Nevermind that we don't slaughter innocent people by the thousands in the name of our God, the liberals would rather concern themselves with things that really matter. Basically, they'd rather the country crawling with Muslims who'd just assume cut off their infidel heads with a rusty steak knife. We are quickly becoming a third world nation.

coq
11-11-2009, 4:51 PM
Of course not. The usual "anti" media-outlets are already trumpeting this as evidence that we need more laws.

And, if I'm not mistaken, I believe it is already against the law to burst into a crowded area and kill a room full of innocent people. Didn't he know he was breaking the law?

Doug L
11-11-2009, 6:38 PM
I was wondering if this incident will help the effort to repeal AB962 gain more traction and/or support from our legislators? What would the logical approach / rationale be?

Opinions?

In order to repeal AB 962 we need to change the nature of the public discussion about guns. We understand, that had a CCW or LOC person been present at Fort Hood, then Hasan would have been stopped before he could have killed and wounded anywhere near as many people as he did. That is, having an armed person present is a good thing, and will save lives.

Therefore, whenever any kind of gun crime hits the media each and every one of us needs to write a letter to the editor of our nearest local newspaper asking the question,
"Why wasn't there a person with a concealed- or open-carried gun nearby to stop the shooter????"

[Helpful writing tip: Keep the language simple and straightforward, and don't use acronyms like CCW. Most people have no clue what that means.]

Eventually, it will begin to dawn on some people, that having potential armed responders around is actually a good thing.

Not sure how or what to write to the editor???? Need some ideas to get started???? Check the thread In wake of Ft. Hood Santa Barbara paper says gun control doesn't work for The Daily Sound article "So Much for Gun Control."

yellowfin
11-11-2009, 6:50 PM
We have a very effective counter to the press trying to pull any sleazy anti gun plugging. You could call it the Hupp card: clearly and undeniably gun control was responsible for this, so any blame automatically makes any anti gunner an instant villain and deservedly so.

bodger
11-11-2009, 7:20 PM
I also want to add that I really hope this tragedy doesn't lead to discrimination against Muslims in uniform; they are truly an asset to our national defense. When I served, I knew a Sgt. working in Intel who was a Muslim, and he collected a whole lot of valuable info while deployed precisely because of his faith--the locals were comfortable talking to him and not the others. He believed very strongly, and I believed him as well, that the fact that he was a Muslim and could relate to local people allowed him to do his job better and thus save American lives. At the same time, he had to endure a LtCol who told him he "didn't belong."

Though not nearly as extreme, it makes me think back to the Japanese-Americans who proudly served even as their own families were locked up in camps at home. I can't imagine the kind of pain and anguish that must have caused. If that's not proof of loyalty, I don't know what is.


That Light Colonel should have been disciplined.

There's a definite similarity to the Japanese-Americans who served in WWII.
But don't forget, they were never allowed to fight the enemy Japanese. The combat outfits that were comprised of Japanese-American troops all fought in Europe. Even though many of them said they were willing to fight the Japanese as well.

I've read a lot about Roosevelt's decision to create the "War Relocation Camps" for the Japanese.

As extreme as it was, I wonder if this saved American lives. Prevented espionage, and sabotage. And if it did, if it saved even one life, was it worth it?

Southwest Chuck
11-11-2009, 8:16 PM
In order to repeal AB 962 we need to change the nature of the public discussion about guns. We understand, that had a CCW or LOC person been present at Fort Hood, then Hasan would have been stopped before he could have killed and wounded anywhere near as many people as he did. That is, having an armed person present is a good thing, and will save lives.

Therefore, whenever any kind of gun crime hits the media each and every one of us needs to write a letter to the editor of our nearest local newspaper asking the question,
"Why wasn't there a person with a concealed- or open-carried gun nearby to stop the shooter????"

[Helpful writing tip: Keep the language simple and straightforward, and don't use acronyms like CCW. Most people have no clue what that means.]

Eventually, it will begin to dawn on some people, that having potential armed responders around is actually a good thing.

Not sure how or what to write to the editor???? Need some ideas to get started???? Check the thread In wake of Ft. Hood Santa Barbara paper says gun control doesn't work for The Daily Sound article "So Much for Gun Control."

Now that's a good idea!:thumbsup:

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 8:25 PM
I've read a lot about Roosevelt's decision to create the "War Relocation Camps" for the Japanese.

As extreme as it was, I wonder if this saved American lives. Prevented espionage, and sabotage. And if it did, if it saved even one life, was it worth it?

I can't tell if the above is written tongue-in-cheek or not, so I'll assume it's not and apologize later if I'm wrong. :D


We should all know by now that that's not the right question to ask.

The gun control freaks ask the same question about their misguided attempts to disarm us: if it saves even one life, isn't it worth it?

That question is the wrong one to ask because it assume the life of one individual is more valuable than any burden we might place upon ourselves or others. And that's simply not a valid assumption.

Perhaps I can elaborate on this by asking a similar, if opposite, question of my own: isn't liberty worth whatever lives we might lose in the process of securing it and defending it?

The bottom line is that sticking people into detention camps without due process is a gross violation of their rights, pure and simple. It simply should not be done. After all, the price in lives to preserve their freedom is worth it, isn't it?

The only time to be violating an individual's rights, much less that of such a large group, is when there is absolutely no other way. The founders of the country recognized this so much that they put no provisions in the Constitution for suspension of Constitutional protections except for habeus corpus, and that only in time of rebellion or invasion, and even then only when public safety requires it. And WW2 constituted neither rebellion nor invasion.

One would hope that we of all people would understand these things...

Seesm
11-11-2009, 10:25 PM
YOU can "Hope for Change" of AB962 but I am gonna go with nahhh. :)

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 5:44 AM
Political correctness is killing innocent Americans. While it may be true that not ALL Muslims are terrorists, it is also true that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims. That fact alone is reason enough to be extra-cautious of Muslims. To do otherwise is a fool's errand. So, to those of you who would make the point that we shouldn't put extra scrutiny on Muslims within our society simply because they're Muslim, I ask...... why not? This is the group in which the greatest threat exists. You would prefer to ignore obvious danger? Instead, our media and society is in a constant state of anti-Christianism. Ummmm, whens the last time you heard of a Christian terrorist blowing up a restaurant or violently murdering people in the Name of Jesus Christ? This is the mental disorder known as liberal political correctness. They would rather cast out Christians because we're anti-abortion and anti-gay. Nevermind that we don't slaughter innocent people by the thousands in the name of our God, the liberals would rather concern themselves with things that really matter. Basically, they'd rather the country crawling with Muslims who'd just assume cut off their infidel heads with a rusty steak knife. We are quickly becoming a third world nation.

LOL more people throughout history have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other religious figure- EVER. Seriously. I can't fathom how you could believe what you just posted. The vast majority of Muslims are good people. If there were more terrorist Muslims than good Muslims than I'd have to agree, but your logic is WAY off.

dansgold
11-12-2009, 12:37 PM
... more people throughout history have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other religious figure- EVER. ...

Not even close to being true, although this bit of agit-prop has been repeated enough that many are quick to believe it.

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 12:59 PM
Not even close to being true, although this bit of agit-prop has been repeated enough that many are quick to believe it.

Then go ahead and dispute it.

Evidence?

Didn't think so.

Now Google "christian atrocities" "christian genocide" etc...

Ever hear of the crusades?

Salem witch trials?

How about the catholic extermination camps during WWII???

The massacres in Rwanda in 1994?

The spanish inquisition???

"In 1122 Christian crusaders swept over Jerusalem and slaughtered men, women and children, 'until their horses were knee deep in blood. We then went to the church to thank the Lord for his mercy.'"

I'm not hating. It's not "agit-prop". Believe it or not I'm educated. I also read. Do you?

/BTW there's no dash in agitprop.

dansgold
11-12-2009, 1:44 PM
I read a LOT, have done so at college level for over 40 years, and I think you need to stop "googling" so much and spend some time in an actual library.

The largest number of deaths which can be unambiguously attributed to being "in Jesus name" are unarguably from the Crusades. A total of about 9-10 million people died in all of the Crusades combined ... about half on each side. So, by that simple reckoning, about 5 million were killed "in the name of Jesus", but that many also "in the name of Muhammad" If you start adding up ALL of the rationally attributable "killings in the name of Christ", including internecine squabbles, you'll probably end up with maybe another 2-3 million.

That's a pretty reliable number, BTW. If you want to count any time any random person or group of persons identified as "Christians" killed someone, you can manufacture something much larger, but you'd really have to play games with definitions to do so. Most Americans and Brits in WW2 were at least nominally Christians, for instance, but it's hardly fair to say that they personally or corporately "fought in the name of Jesus".

I don't consider this a religious discussion, BTW, as I have no intention here of defending or accusing any particular faith. I just have strong respect for the truth, and strong dislike for letting "big lies" get repeated without a challenge.

Considering that Mao was/is - by definition since he is worshiped to this day by many - a "religious figure" ... your argument hardly holds up to even a cursory examination. That's just considering ONE, recent historical figure. Start adding up the death toll at the behest of various "God kings" throughout history ... it's a slam dunk. Not even arguable. Go on to consider meso-american religious rituals, some resulting in the sacrifice of something like 50,000 (yes, THOUSAND) over a four-day period to consecrate a new temple. Some scholarly estimates average the number of human sacrifices as high as 200,000 per year or more, most of them young children. This kind of thing went on for about 150 years, do the math.

Also, and to put this in context, consider the following: Has the Pope ordered anyone killed lately? Did Jesus EVER order anyone killed or kill anyone himself? In Mohammed's case, he both killed others (mercilessly) and ordered others to do the same. His followers are still following those orders today, and issuing Fatwas to strap on bombs and kill innocent schoolchildren.

Should I take Jesus' teaching "to love your neighbor as yourself" to be a call to war or something? When he said to pray for your enemies, was that secret code for "bash their heads in"? There's math, and then their's meaning.

It's very easy to simply repeat this "more in the name of Jesus" nonsense if you first inclined to believe it and then "study" with a strong confirmation bias at work. I've found that this kind of things often gets accepted uncritically, because someone impressionable hears it from a poli-sci prof who really should know better. A genuine study of history from a dispassionate perspective reveals something quite different.

Glock22Fan
11-12-2009, 3:08 PM
Some scholarly estimates place the number of human sacrifices as high as 200,000 per year or more, most of them young children. This kind of thing went on for about 150 years, do the math.

Thirty million meso-American sacrifices? Were there that many people even living on the American continent at that time? And, as for the Crusade deaths, I'm inclined to view both sides' deaths as having been caused by fighting instigated in Jesus' name. Or are we going to hold Jehovah as responsible for half the deaths in the Warsaw uprising? And coming to that war, I believe both sides claimed loudly and often that they were fighting in God's name and that God was on their side. And let's not get started on the Holocaust, or is that one of the things that, from your reading, never happened?

dansgold
11-12-2009, 7:15 PM
I'd invite you to research the 30 million figure. Keep in mind that this is over a 150 year (or so) period of time.

Why would you consider the Crusades entirely a matter of fighting in Jesus' name? The only way you could do so is to adopt the inaccurate position that they were entirely brought about because of Christian incursion into Muslim territory ... that's just not so, as much of it had to do with a response to Muslim incursion (and taking of territory) into southern Europe.

Is it your implication that the Holocaust was a Christian pogrom? That would be odd, since they executed Christians as well in very large numbers. It's well known that NAZI philosophy was stridently anti-christian.

It appears that those who are unwilling to accept historical and factual revisionism when it come to guns are more than willing to credulously accept it elsewhere. I'd expect better from people who should know better. Maybe it's better they should just stick to guns.

ErikTheRed
11-12-2009, 11:59 PM
LOL more people throughout history have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other religious figure- EVER. Seriously. I can't fathom how you could believe what you just posted. The vast majority of Muslims are good people. If there were more terrorist Muslims than good Muslims than I'd have to agree, but your logic is WAY off.

Dear Sir,

I'm obviously referring to modern times. That old "more people killed in the name of Jesus" riff is an overused and irrelevent liberal arguement that cannot be related to the terrorist acts of modern Muslim extremism. But if your logic tells you to be wary of Christian terrorists flying planes into crowded buildings or blowing up the local shopping mall or developing dirty nukes to be detonated in Times Square or slicing off heads while yelling "PRAISE THE LORD!", all the while giving Muslims a free pass because, after all, there are more good ones than bad, then I won't dare argue your logic. Watch out for those evil, dangerous Christians....... they're everywhere.

ErikTheRed
11-13-2009, 12:03 AM
I can't fathom how you could believe what you just posted.

Ummmm, might I suggest you educate yourself in recent matters of Muslim terrorism, and then contrast that to your vast knowledge of all the recent killings in the name of Jesus Christ. That might help you fathom it.