DescentBB

....well, he IS a brain-surgeon.


http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/ ... ous-gunman

" I believe you're looking for the Principal. "

I can see the difference in responses between a madman shooting up a classroom and a guy with a gun in your ribcage, that probably isn’t going to shoot up the entire place.

Different response to different situations…DUH!!!

I can see the difference between the guy who talks tough and isn't in the situation and folks faced with a live shooter.

I don't know. I'm with Carson on this one. Sure, he's bragging, but he does have a point. Look at people on airplanes now since 9/11. They no longer sit still while some crazy person goes after a flight attendant or crew member. They act. They now jump up and MOVE into action and help subdue that person. Look at those guys during that most recent French commuter train incident. A couple of people went into action and got shot in the melee, but they DID stop a terrorist with an automatic weapon and DID prevent him from killing a lot more people.

So a guy with a gun storming into your classroom after he's already shot your professor dead through the window, is probably going to shoot everyone else in that class anyway. I mean, why is this bastard in there with guns in the first place, except to kill people? Why stand there like a statue and be shot like a dog? I say, everyone should just jump up charge the guy all at once, screaming at him to confuse him. I would even if I was alone in my actions and I sure as hell wouldn't stand there like a easy target. Sure, some people are going to get hit when the gunman is surprised, but it's far more difficult to hit moving targets than a stationary ones and I'd rather die fighting on my feet than making myself an easy target. At least I died trying.

I get the logic, but far be it from me to tell anyone HOW I WOULD HAVE ACTED, after a bunch of folks are killed. The bottom line is that I'll leave that call to those who were there. Clearly, one guy did try and get the shooter, and paid a price for it. Others chose not to, but damned if I'm going to suggest they were somehow weak. It's called Armchair Quarterbacking in sports, and Ben seems to be a whiz at it. He has shown himself to be no more deserving of consideration for President than Trump or Huckabee, for the same reason essentially. We need folks with a sense of restraint, humility and diplomacy, not loudmouths trying to impugn others. Cue the Obama-haters with examples of why he is evil and hurts their feelings in 3,2,1.......

I agree with your assessment of Carson, that he's being a egotistical braggart during a time of mourning and it's downright tacky and presumptuous of him. It's a condescending way to run for president. But I think there might be a sea change coming out of all these mass shootings, just like has happened after 9/11. People are no longer sitting down and cowering. This country is no longer civilized, the police can't always protect us and now we must look after our own butts, even if we're not armed. There is power in numbers, even if only one guy has the gun.

tunnelcat wrote:I agree with your assessment of Carson, that he's being a egotistical braggart during a time of mourning and it's downright tacky and presumptuous of him. It's a condescending way to run for president. But I think there might be a sea change coming out of all these mass shootings, just like has happened after 9/11. People are no longer sitting down and cowering. This country is no longer civilized, the police can't always protect us and now we must look after our own butts, even if we're not armed. There is power in numbers, even if only one guy has the gun.

well, you use the same logic as I to reach a gloomier scenario. I feel that the final outcome will ultimately be a push for much stricter oversight over gun sales, background checks and such. I fully expect it to be a campaign issue in 2016, and that the NRA will push for that, too. Given that the NRA has done dismally bad in the last 3 election cycles whenever they've publicly backed a candidate, I hope they do go all in.

I guess if you were raised in a sheep pen then you wouldn't understand what Carson is saying.

woodchip wrote:I guess if you were raised in a sheep pen then you wouldn't understand what Carson is saying.

what I understand is that talk is cheap. And, that cheap talk about the bravery of others in a situation you've never seen, uttered after a tragedy, is really dumb politics.

But still good advice…none the less.

just stop, Ben, STOP!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10 ... 1444390035

Actually I have heard military experts and historians say pretty much the same thing.

You might also want to look into how some of the Jews did escape and use those useless firearms against the Nazis. (reference to the Panzer remark)

Would it have prevented all of the killing…probably not.

your last sentence makes the whole point, Spidey. Would that have PREVENTED the Holocaust? No. This is just a dumb subject for a person wishing to be President to wade into, on a few levels.

No, but putting up at fight would've have made it a whole lot harder to round Jews up like cows to slaughter AND hide the fact they were being systematically exterminated once they were removed. By the time they realized that they WERE considered no better than cattle, they had no access to weapons or the ability to flee. They were trapped. Remember, Hitler never broadcast the fact that he was exterminating them wholesale. He was just removing them from the pure Aryan State as his solution. If most Jews had known what was coming, they probably wouldn't have been so meek about marching off to their deaths. The present State of Israel's strong military might is proof of that. They'll never be considered as cattle to be easily lead off to slaughter ever again. They will fight for their right to exist. I'm sure Flabby Chick can see that sentiment.

Hey slick, you do realize that if strict gun control laws just like the ones you are regularly pushing for had existed back in the 1700's, we would still be paying taxes to the royal family.

It isn't so much that people don't need military grade weapons for defense, throughout the bulk of American history civilians carried military grade weapons for their own defense. Instead, it is just that in the last century military grade weapons have become excessive to the point of total insanity. These weapons simply should have never existed in the first place, unfortunately the world is not so kind of a place as to not continue to advance that technology to beyond any practical need.

Krom wrote:Hey slick, you do realize that if strict gun control laws just like the ones you are regularly pushing for had existed back in the 1700's, we would still be paying taxes to the royal family.

no, I don't realize that, because I never once mentioned taking a single weapon away from any mentally stable, responsible individual.

callmeslick wrote:

Krom wrote:Hey slick, you do realize that if strict gun control laws just like the ones you are regularly pushing for had existed back in the 1700's, we would still be paying taxes to the royal family.

no, I don't realize that, because I never once mentioned taking a single weapon away from any mentally stable, responsible individual.

Every single thread about guns, you talk about how if people don't agree to your so-called "common-sense" reforms, the nation will eventually vote in gun bans. You're certainly willing to invoke the spectre of taking weapons away from stable, responsible individuals in a misguided attempt to influence opinions.

yes, I'm issuing that warning out of concern that my moderate positon will become an untenable minority position down the road, Lothar. To use your reference to the founding of the nation, that whole experience soured them on the concept of a central, standing army, as one had been used to squelch their freedom and rights. Hence, the wrote the 2nd Amendment to provide for a dependable means of national defense(appropriate to the times, as many note, with military and hunting weaponry rather similar). Some side commentary of the day ALLUDED to potential overthrow of tyrants, but on both counts, that went out the window and into irrelevance once we developed a US Army in the early 19th century. The overthrow part may have been relevant until the Industrial Revolution developed weaponry far more powerful than citizen arms, to the point where we are today.
So, no, while I've pointed out that I feel the lame response by far too many supposed 'responsible' gun owners is going to lead to a potential backlash, I am not inclined to head down the path that Australia took, or any scheme that requires legal owners with clear qualifications(yes, that mean recurring background checks, like re-upping a drivers license)having to turn in weapons.

callmeslick wrote:
no, I don't realize that, because I never once mentioned taking a single weapon away from any mentally stable, responsible individual.

and who determines who is mentally stable enough to own a firearm? The same people who push to have absolutely no ID to vote?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
no, I don't realize that, because I never once mentioned taking a single weapon away from any mentally stable, responsible individual.

and who determines who is mentally stable enough to own a firearm? The same people who push to have absolutely no ID to vote?

hilarious: we've had HOW many thousand senseless firearms deaths(murders and suicides) but lets dismiss addressing that. The real problem is the issue of mis-identification of voters, with exactly 31 documented cases in the past 20 years. Gotta love that consistency, Woody!

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the ... c0d0f1f6da

read it, dammit.

Ferno wrote:read it, dammit.

Riveting, thanks. I also appreciate the nod to S. Pinker's research, which changed the way I look at the world and I recommend his book to everyone who thinks they can handle such a voluminous work. (I have a digital copy I might let you "borrow.")