home

Over-Reacting to ISIS Threat

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:08:59 PM EST
Tags: ISIS, Iraq, Syria (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

From Foreign Policy Magazine: Ten truths about terrorism:

  • No. 1: We can’t keep the bad guys out.
  • No. 2: The threat is already inside.
  • No. 3: More surveillance won’t get rid of terrorism.
  • No. 4: Defeating the Islamic State won’t make terrorism go away.
  • No. 5: Terrorism still remains a relatively minor threat, statistically speaking.

[More...]

  • No. 6: Things will probably get worse before they get better.
  • No. 7: Poorly planned Western actions can make things still worse.
  • No. 8: Terrorism is a problem to be managed (not a war we can win).
  • No. 9: To do this, we need to move beyond the political posturing that characterizes most public debates about counterterrorism
  • No. 10: We need to stop rewarding terrorism.
The anti-refugee backlash will aid Islamic State recruiting, and tourism is taking a hit even here in the United States, where fear alone has led schools to cancel class trips to Washington. The more the West flails around with talk of bombs and border guards and police, the happier the Islamic State becomes. The cheapest and easiest way to reduce the benefits of terrorism is to stop overreacting. ...we need to stop viewing terrorism as unique and aberrational. The more we panic and posture and overreact, the more terrorism we’ll get.
< San Bernadino: Supporters vs. Soldiers | President Obama Speaks to Nation on ISIS >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Over-Reacting to ISIS Threat | 149 comments (149 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    My personal opinion (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:25:39 PM EST
    It's not about over reacting but reacting in the wrong way.  There are lots of reports floating around now about ISIS planning biological and/or chemical attack and that the stuff is already in the EU.

    I didn't link to any because I didn't like the looks of the sources but there are quite a few out there.

    If there is a chance thats true IMO over reacting would be difficult.  Reacting in the wrong way and making things worse is quite possible.

    And then we have Homeland (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:36:16 AM EST
    Last night :) Oy

    Homeland is creeping me out this season, a bit last season too. Right on the heels of the headlines.

    Parent

    Yes, it is hard to watch (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 07:06:01 PM EST
    really too on the nose this season.

    Parent
    There are not "lots of reports." (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 03:35:50 PM EST
    Rather, there was one single story in the right-wing London tabloid The Daily Mail, which unfortunately has gotten repeated and republished on multiple occasions over the last few days by others, including here at TL.

    Further, Beatrix Immenkamp's report for members of the European Parliament in Brussels, which was misrepresented in The Daily Mail as being about ISIS actively planning attacks with WMD, is actually a review and recounting of some of pertinent and already available information and reports on the subject of existential threat assessment from non-state actors, of which ISIS is but one.

    One need only recall the 1995 sarin gas attack on Tokyo's subway system, to realize that these non-state malcontents have long been hovering out there on our horizon for several decades now, certainly well before ISIS ever arrived on the scene a few years ago. In that regard, Ms. Immenkamp's report is actually worth a read, if only to alleviate one's anxiety about both what can be done, and what is presently being done, to counter ISIS / ISIL, et al.

    That's probably why other media sources have not necessarily picked up on it, and why its only mention was in the Daily Mail story. Given that tabloid's track record of trafficking in sensationalism and fomenting public hysteria, we should probably take most anything it publishes with a grain of salt -- and perhaps a slice of lime and shot of Cuervo 1800 Especial, as well.

    And I think therein lies the problem. Henceforth, a lot of us -- myself certainly included in that number -- need to be much more discriminating with regard to what information we choose to repeat to one another over the internet. Otherwise, when we start receiving our own contributions to the echo chamber as feedback, we increase the potential for misinformation to compound upon itself.

    An educated and well-informed populace, one which is further and fully cognizant of their situations and surroundings, makes for a much less fearful society and a much more confident nation.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 03:40:08 PM EST
    When I looked last night it was up in 20 or more places.  I noted the sources were questionable.    I think you've made your point.  
    But a few thousand more words can't hurt.

    Parent
    Not just from me, Cap'n, but from you as well. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 04:34:14 PM EST
    We all have a responsibility now to push back forcibly against such misinformation, particularly when it's being disseminated with a clear, purposeful and malevolent intent to provoke a clash of civilizations -- or, at the very least, a major war with Iran and / or Russia in the Middle East and / or Ukraine, one which could subsequently go very badly for us, given our military's present state of disrepair and exhaustion.

    I, for one, refuse to accept as inevitable the U.S. military's dutiful latter-day assumption of the role once played by Lord Cardigan's Light Brigade, with our bubbleheaded media cheering on our "Noble 600" on live TV as they dash with aplomb down the valley of death to their doom.

    Let's please not kid ourselves that such an event could not possibly transpire. We presently have an entire major political party which is both firmly wedded to the denial of reality, and entirely contemptuous of the idea that it should bear any responsibility for the predicament on the Middle East in which we presently find ourselves enmeshed.

    These are the ingredients of which calamities are made.

    Parent

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:39:21 PM EST
    No. 1: We can't keep the bad guys out.
    We can improve  screening process, time to drastically enforce both Southern and Northern borders
    No. 2: The threat is already inside.
    Yes
    No. 3: More surveillance won't get rid of terrorism.
    Might help stop events, but trusting our government is tough
    No. 4: Defeating the Islamic State won't make terrorism go away.
    It will help make it harder for them to recruit and train
    No. 5: Terrorism still remains a relatively minor threat, statistically speaking.
    See #2, See #6
    No. 6: Things will probably get worse before they get better.
    No. 7: Poorly planned Western actions can make things still worse.
    Poorly planned actions make anything worse
    No. 8: Terrorism is a problem to be managed (not a war we can win).
    With a enthusiastic and worldwide effort....maybe
    No. 9: To do this, we need to move beyond the political posturing that characterizes most public debates about counterterrorism
    Yes
    No. 10: We need to stop rewarding terrorism.
    We might have different definitions of rewarding

    I would think that, (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    with over 20,000 acts of terrorism recorded since 9-11, where at least one person was killed, the question of over-reacting is one of semantics.

    It's not even debatable that reacting in the wrong way, as Howdy stated above, is counter productive. But the attitude that the lead-in article is musing, "too bad, how sad, it's here, learn to live with it," will be found to be  unacceptable.

    I get it. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 06:41:49 PM EST
    We're moving from fear of terrism to fear of fear of terrism.

    That's gotta be progress.

    You spend months trying to make ISIS (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:13:33 AM EST
    Appear larger than life Jeralyn, and then when an ISIS inspired mass shooting on American soil occurs you then shift gears and worry about an over-reaction?

    Overreaction, meaning gun control.. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:25:13 AM EST


    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:31:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Xrist... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 12:57:19 AM EST
    the nutjobs are coming out from under the rocks.

    the commment you are replying to (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:20:18 AM EST
    was deleted for being a bigoted rant. Zaif the Unconvicted is now limited to four comments a day per our comment policy.

    Parent
    What About Minding Our Own Business? (3.50 / 2) (#5)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 06:36:03 PM EST
    It is pretty rare for a terrorist to explain his actions as being caused by a desire to kill non Muslims just for being non Muslim. It usually is because he is protesting interference by the victim's country in the Muslim world.

    Tell that to the (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by coast on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:44:28 PM EST
    Yazidi and Shiite men, women and children who have been shot and thrown into mass graves.

    Parent
    As Far as the Threat to the US is Concerned (none / 0) (#20)
    by RickyJim on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 09:08:07 AM EST
    it is all about US involvement in the Muslim World.  For example:
    "He said he agreed with (IS chief Abu Bakr) al-Baghdadi's ideas for creating the Islamic State, and he was obsessed by Israel," La Stampa quoted the father of the shooter, also named Syed Farook, as saying.

    "I always used to say to him, be calm, patience, in two years' time Israel will no longer exist," he said, in remarks reported in Italian.

    "Geopolitics are changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants Jews over there. They will put them all in Ukraine. Why bother fighting them? We did that before, and we lost," the 67-year-old said.

    "But he didn't want to know. He was obsessed" by the idea of fighting Israel, Farook was quoted as saying.

    Link

    Parent
    My goodness, a revelation (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 09:12:16 AM EST
    I'm sure that has never occurred to anyone here.  

    Fact check.  Israel exists.  We are involved  regardless of what we might prefer.

    The question serious people are dealing with us what we do now.  Imaginary thinking is not particularly helpful.

    Parent

    I love this part: (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 09:51:22 AM EST
    "nobody wants Jews over there."

    So, let's not tell anyone, but, Israelis are Jews. Shhh.

    And, once again, a little of the Google would have informed Genius boy that, guess what? Russia, China, AND, Saudi Arabia have entered into negotiations with (stinky, feh, poo) Israel. Obviously, Israel could use a lot of what those three countries have to offer, and, in return, those countries would just luuuv some of that good old Israeli technology. You gotta hand it to those Jews, with nothing but sand to export, they figured, "Mazeltof! they need brains, we got brains oozing out our ears."

       

    Parent

    I Gather That When Looking for Solutions (none / 0) (#23)
    by RickyJim on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:19:48 AM EST
    You guys feel that both banning assault weapons and changing US interventionism (in particular as regards to Israel) are off the table.  So is there anything else left to lessen the threat of domestic terrorism but the Republican "Let's send in a real army and show 'em who is boss."?

    Parent
    Whoah there, Ricky Boy (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:39:22 AM EST
    I take offense that you would denigrate a whole group of commenters here and smearing their good names by including me as one of them....."you guys."

    I'm my own jerk, and nothing you can say makes me one of them, "you guys."

    Got it??

    Parent

    Ricky and anyone else (none / 0) (#27)
    by Green26 on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 11:34:55 AM EST
    Do you think more gun control in the US stop ISIS terrorist shootings and mass shootings, or even have any significant impact on preventing them?

    Parent
    Yes, Now Somebody Answer My Questions (none / 0) (#28)
    by RickyJim on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 11:40:41 AM EST


    Parent
    37 (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 01:13:34 PM EST
    The answer is 37

    Parent
    Probably to (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 03:10:45 PM EST
    recondite

    Parent
    I Thought the Answer... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    ... was 42.

    Parent
    Different question (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 03:20:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, if it's a different question, then I say 11. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 03:47:24 PM EST
    11's always been my lucky number, particularly when the question is "What comes after the number 10?"
    ;-D

    Parent
    Green... (none / 0) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    Do you think more guns in the US will stop ISIS terrorist shootings and mass shootings, or even have any significant impact on preventing them ?

    Parent
    No, but having more people with guns (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Green26 on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 05:39:50 PM EST
    in public places would likely lead to fewer people being killed in mass shootings, whether by ISIS or otherwise. For example, having some people with guns, and who knew how to use, them would likely have caused fewer people to die in the concert hall in Paris. In rural gun states, some people would be firing back.

    Not that I think this is the solution or a good solution. Just an answer to a question.

    Doesn't look like anyone wants to give a real answer to my question, tho.

    Parent

    No Proof... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    ...just a braod general statemnt that you cannot back-up.
    would likely lead to fewer people being killed in mass

    Would likely occur according to people who think guns have made us safer, yet they can't quit prove it.  

    We are averaging one mass shooting a day, gun sales are off the charts, yet no heroes with pistols taking out assault wielding killers.

    We do know there was a guy packing in the Oregon Campus Shooting who said he didn't want to be mistaken for the shooter by the police so he didn't do anything.

    Your claim is a myth.

    Parent

    Scott, my claim is actually my belief (none / 0) (#64)
    by Green26 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:23:37 AM EST
    And I certainly do believe that there would be fewer people killed in mass shootings if more people were armed. I know alot of people skilled with guns, and I know how they would react. I also see how some people have defended their houses against intruders, both in good and bad ways. I know how my son and his friends would have reacted if they had been at the concert hall in Paris with a gun. They would have risked their own lives to stop the shooters.

    You have zero evidence that my belief is not correct. So, I guess we're even.

    Parent

    To answer your question, Green (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:11:22 AM EST
    I come from, a military family. The Marines killed my brother. And my father, who was on subs in the navy, lost all his friends when the Thresher went down.

    Job descriptions don't impress me one iota -- any more than cars, wardrobes, or trophy wives do.

    If a person feels proud and at peace with what they've done with their lives, marvelous. But when they expect me to be obediently enthralled by their resume while they puff out their chests and crow about how they "served" more than anyone else without providing a lot more detailed, specific information -- which I may or may not be interested in hearing about, depending on my patience level -- then, to save time and energy, I write that person off as just another in a long long line of self-important horse's asses full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.    

    Parent

    How could I forget my grandfather (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 12:21:19 PM EST
    who fought in the Russian revolution and civil war and had PTSD for the rest of his life?

    A shout out to you, Nicholas!

    Sorry for the OT.

    Parent

    Great, jondee (none / 0) (#71)
    by Green26 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:27:51 PM EST
    If you attack Jim over only serving in the military, but not fighting in a war, then you are not included in my comment about hypocrites. I don't know where you're coming from with your comment about people expecting you to be enthralled by what they done, but I don't recall anyone expecting you to be enthralled.

    Parent
    After you've heard (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:38:07 PM EST
    "I served and you didn't" a few dozen times, you may start to understand a little better.

    Parent
    jondee, who was saying that? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Green26 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:11:28 PM EST
    Jim?

    On the other hand, regarding military service (and many other things), I do think that someone who was in the military, or in the military and in a war, or in the military and a shooter in a war, tends to know more, or much more, than the rest of us. That doesn't mean they are right. That doesn't mean that the rest of us can't catch up with or even surpass much of what the person who served knows. They just start with a leg up. You start with a leg up.

    Parent

    If they're lucky they get a leg up.. (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:20:22 PM EST
    I've also seen a few get a leg down.

    What doesn't kill you makes you stronger isn't always true, people can die on the inside just as surely as they can be killed physically.

    Parent

    What I Was Saying... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 12:17:40 PM EST
    ...and I think you know this, is that your belief can't be backed by numbers.  Anecdotal evidence definitely, sounds like it, I think we all know people who would be good in dangerous situations, or at the very least, believe it.

    But for the country, it would be insane to craft policy/laws based on what people think rather than the evidence available.  You are free to choose to ignore the evidence, but the country as a whole should not.  3000+ mass shooting and as far as I know not even 1 has been stopped by someone carrying a personal weapon.  But even if they had, it's still to few to make broad assumptions.  Give me 10%, even 5%, 1 in 20, in which someone with a gun stopped a mass shooting.  I think more people would listed if it actually happened because we all want the same thing, our safety.  It's not like we want anyone less safe, but so far arming people is having the exact opposite effect that you claim.

    The number of lives saved is dismal when compared to the number they take, that is not by belief, that is a fact.  It's an experiment 200 years in the making, at what point can we say guns are harming more people than they help ?

    Never, there is literally no data that will convince some that too may lives have been taken versus how many they have saved.

    Right now your belief simply does not stand up to even the most lax interpretation of mass shootings and people carrying a defense weapons, data.  

    When are you guys going to start saving lives instead of allowing your guns to fall into criminal hands ?

    Parent

    Scott, I was expressing my belief (none / 0) (#73)
    by Green26 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:48:52 PM EST
    Never said my belief was backed up by anything. I'm not trying to set any policy; just expressing my belief.

    Show us the data on how many times a terrorist mass murder or similar shooting was occurred, when people there with guns did nothing. I assume that in almost all those situations, there were few or no people with guns, or who knew how to handle guns.

    I've seen articles on that mass murder stats, and know the methodology is way off and that the big number is total BS.

    My theory can't be tested if there aren't people who can handle guns at the events.

    Look at gang shootings and murders. When guys getting shot at have guns, they are often able to defend themselves. If they didn't have gun, they would probably be dead.

    My theory is narrow. I'm not making a policy argument, or weighing the pro's and con's against each other. Just think guys with guns would use them if they were there.

    Parent

    Agree to Disagree... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 10:01:43 AM EST
    ...we will never agree, and I am tried of having the same arguments about the same things.

    Links to the numbers:
    1,052 mass shootings in 1,066 days

    And I think you meant you disagree with the definition of mass shooting not the methodology.  There were 1052, not 3000 as mentioned about, I had 3 years in mind, and transposed it 3000, it was a mistake.  Nearly one a day for 3 years.  Keep in mid that article is a week old, so probably at least another 7 to add.
    -----------------

    Jim has written this phrase no less than 150 times at Talk Left, "I served you didn't", as some sort of proof that he is more patriotic than others.

    I am sick of it, everyone is, and even worse he won't say what he actually did beyond 'Naval Aviation".  Which when I was in, working on a flight deck, was never a phrase we never used, to which Jim has called me a liar numerous times.  We used 'Air Wing' and I was in the 'Air Dept'.

    I get that your son has served, and it sounds like he did very honorably, but to defend Jim on this point is to defend the indefensible.  Military service is not a blunt object used to batter your political foes as less patriotic, but that is the only thing Jim does with his, beyond not actually telling anyone what he really did.  It's why I call him a paper pusher, because if he actually did something of importance, he would be bludgeoning us with it as well.

    Even now, he is posting and hasn't come to help you out because nothing anyone is saying is inaccurate.  Plain and simple, Jim uses his service to prove he is a better American than others and people, including myself, and we are GD tired of it.

    Parent

    Real life (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:14:22 PM EST
    A veteran who says he was carrying a concealed weapon on the UCC campus Thursday when 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer went on a murderous rampage, says he didn't intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn't know him from the shooter.

    In an interview with MSNBC, vet John Parker said he knows lots of students who conceal carry at the school because, despite a school policy that discourages weapons on campus, Oregon state law does allow it.

    ...Parker explained that his military training provided him with the skills to "go into danger," but said he felt lucky he and others didn't try to get involved going after Mercer.

    "Luckily we made the choice not to get involved," he explained. "We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn't know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys."

    Link

    Parent

    Sometimes (none / 0) (#78)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:38:58 PM EST
    The individual can help make a difference

    In this case he wisely decided against action. To actively hunt down a mass killer doesn't seem wise, but if placed in direct sight of the assailant , someone armed may be able to get the drop on him.

    This individual had sufficient training to know the difference, not sure what training is required of carry permit holders

    Parent

    More real life: (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:44:17 PM EST
    5/2015
    Firefighters said Chad Barker pulled up to the crowded fire station parking lot full of children and firefighters, got out of his car, and began firing in the air and at his vehicle. They say he also pointed the firearm at individual firefighters for lengthy periods of time.

    "I came out of the office, saw the man with the gun, told everybody to leave out the back quickly that there was a man in the parking lot with a gun, and I was not kidding," said Gary Knoll, a firefighter for New Holland.

    Knoll said he and another firefighter who have concealed weapons permits pulled their guns on the gunman.

    Knoll said Barker returned to his vehicle and firefighters carefully followed him with their weapons still drawn. After encouraging Barker to put the gun down, Knoll said Barker ultimately complied and Knoll grabbed the gun.


    10/2015
     Kenneth Rivers was waiting in his car for a to-go order of food, chatting with his brother when he saw Davis rob the restaurant, according to police.

    A concealed-weapons permit holder, Rivers took cover with his gun and confronted Davis when he came out of the eatery, cash drawer in hand. The two exchanged gunfire, and Davis was fatally wounded.

    9/2015
    Local 4 has learned the robber walked into the bank and announced a hold-up. He received money from a teller and then pointed the gun at the customer, who shot him. He shot him in both arms and the leg.


    Parent
    More real life (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:58:48 PM EST
    But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

    But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

    The man who stopped the shooter did not have a gun. The man with the gun almost shot the wrong person.

    Link

    Parent

    We could trade stories all night... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:09:42 PM EST
    Witnesses told police Dillard had come into the café, wielding a gun, and tried to steal from the business and its customers, police said.

    However, a patron who was carrying a legally registered handgun confronted him and shot at least once, killing Dillard, according to police.



    Parent
    That the (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:25:54 PM EST
    Point we could trade stories all night. It's carnage out there and it seems to be acceptable to you.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#84)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:29:34 PM EST
    Do you want to take all the guns away?

    You will get all the ones from law abiding citizens, not so sure the bad guys will give theirs up though

    Parent

    You can keep your hunting rifle (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:36:12 PM EST
    your vintage gun collection, and your Red Ryder BB gun.

    So long as you're not prone to paranoid ideation such as obsessive thoughts about climate scientists, secret muslims, and Vince Foster..

    Parent

    It (none / 0) (#87)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:59:58 PM EST
    would make sense that reducing and the supply of guns would reduce the carnage.

    I don't pretend to know the answers but I find all this good guy bad guy nonsense to be extremely simplistic.

    Guns are killing people day in day out, good guys bad guys, the young and the old, the innocent and the guilty, family and strangers.

    Must we accept this and just hope that the strapped guy coming down the street is one of the good guys or should we all arm ourselves and hope we are never mistaken for a bad guy.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:59:03 PM EST
    For every story you put up, I can put up more where concealed carry weapons result in disasters.

    Concealed carry holder misses attacker in Cleveland road rage incident; shoots another man
    CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A Cleveland man legally carrying a concealed weapon missed his intended target and struck another man when he opened fire during a road rage incident, police said.

    link

    CLEVELAND, Ohio - A concealed carry permit holder accidentally shot himself and another man while sitting in the passenger seat of a car on the city's East Side, Cleveland police said.

    Oct 23, 2015 - A woman who was apparently digging into her purse for some papers at the Christus Outpatient Pavilion medical clinic in Beaumont, Texas this week accidentally dropped the purse, which contained a concealed weapon - discharging a bullet that pierced a wall and non-fatally injured a patient in another room. Police officers are now investigating.  According to a witness "everyone was sitting in the waiting room and there was a gun shot. A woman dropped her purse down on the counter and it shot through the wall and shot another lady."

    Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington
    As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.

    Courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas
    In 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.

    North Carolina: On February 10, 2015, concealed handgun permit holder Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, allegedly shot and killed Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, Barakat's wife, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19. Hicks turned himself in to authorities and was charged with three counts of murder.

    Kentucky: On September 20, 2013, concealed handgun permit holder Kenneth Allen Keith, 48, allegedly shot and killed Michael Hockensmith, 35, his wife Angela Hockensmith, 38, and Daniel Smith, 60, at Gold Games and More, a store owned by the Hockensmiths. Keith, a Pulaski County minister, was charged with three counts of murder and one count of robbery.

    Washington, DC: On September 16, 2013, concealed handgun permit holder Aaron Alexis, 34, shot and killed 12 people at an office building at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC. Alexis entered the building with a Remington 870 shotgun hidden in his backpack. Alexis was shot and killed by police. Alexis had a concealed carry permit from Texas and had previously held one issued in the state of Washington.

    Florida: On July 27, 2013, concealed handgun permit holder Pedro Vargas, 42, shot and killed six people at an apartment complex in Hialeah, Florida, before being shot and killed by a police SWAT team.

    Washington: On April 21, 2013, concealed handgun permit holder Dennis Clark III, 27, shot and killed four people before being killed by police.

    Michigan: On February 15, 2013, concealed handgun permit holder Ferdarius Shine, 28, shot and killed his 68-year-old grandmother, Geraldine Bates, his aunt, Santangela Williams, 49, and his seven-year-old daughter Amera Jones. Shine was found guilty of first-degree murder.

    Parent

    Ya, so here, I think, is the reality. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 12:48:32 AM EST
    Good guys/gals with guns can take out bad guys/gals with guns. Not always, not every time, but they can, and do. (Note that many of your examples above are not of good guys with guns, rather they are of bad guys with guns.)

    This is in contrast to your and others clearly fervently-held, but completely incorrect black-and-white beliefs, as shown by your examples, that good guys/gals with guns never take out bad guys/gals.

    Happy to post up a dozen or two more examples, if you like, just to balance out your examples, so that you see the point...

    Parent

    I don't think anyone has categorically (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 06:52:37 AM EST
    stated that a GGWG can't or hasn't taken out a BGWG, but the point I, at least, have been trying to make is that if you look at the numbers, when you consider how many guns there are in this country, and compare it to the number of successful GGWG incidents, I don't think it translates to a successful argument that if only we had more GGWG, we could take out the BGWG.

    As it is, we have more than 300 million guns in this country.  300 million.  The report I cited showed, what?, 526 incidents where a GGWG triumphed.

    So, it isn't that it never happens, it's that the statistics simply don't prove the argument that if only more GG had guns, we would have fewer incidents with BG.

    [I hope the acronyms don't need explaining]

    Parent

    Thanks. fwiw, the vpc.org link you posted above (none / 0) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 11:02:29 AM EST
    comes up as **UNTRUSTED CONNECTION** for me. Maybe it's just my browser or something, but I won't go there.

    "it's that the statistics simply don't prove the argument that if only more GG had guns, we would have fewer incidents with BG."

    I gotta say I don't agree with that at all, well, at least not with the incorrect concept that is presented in that comment.

    If, say, twice as many GG had guns while they were present at the scene of a crime by BGWG, clearly there would be twice as many times the GGWG would triumph.

    Parent

    But the numbers don't back up your theory. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 12:02:16 PM EST
    I posted an excerpt from the vpc link with numbers in it, and there were other links to other sites that you might take a look at.

    Coincidentally, just 13 hours before those atrocious killings, the Violence Policy Center released a fresh analysis of federal crime and health data that explores how often potential victims actually turned the tables. Parsing 2012 numbers, the center counted 259 justifiable gun-related homicides, or incidents in which authorities ruled that killings occurred in self-defense.

    Given how many guns there are, shouldn't the numbers of people using guns successfully in self-defense, or in defense of others, be a lot higher?  Why wouldn't it be higher?  

     

    Parent

    Let's call the number of GGs (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 12:32:35 PM EST
    who were able to access their guns at the scene of BGWGs' crimes "X." And from your numbers those X guys stopped the BGWGs 259 times in 2012.

    So if 2X GGs were able to access their guns at the scene of BGWG's crimes, they would have stopped BGWGs 2 x 259 times.


    Parent

    There may be (none / 0) (#108)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 06:11:52 AM EST
    a lot of guns in circulation

    But not that many carry permits,

    And in open carry states , I do not believe that many people actually carry

    Parent

    People are advocating that (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 09:20:01 AM EST
    If more people were carrying guns that the good guys would take out the bad guys and save lives.

    Well here is the thing...there is no good guy test.

     For every example of a good guy that you can find that may save the day, there are lots more stupid guys/guys with conceal carry permits that do not secure their weapons and as a result children shoot themselves or others. There are lots more stupid conceal carry holders that accidentally shoot  themselves or others, some while trying to play the part of a good guy.

    For every good guy that may have saved the day, there a lot more that have solved their anger issues or their irrational fears by shooting people.

    For every good guy that may have saved the day, there are lots more conceal and carry holders that may at  one time been good guys/girls but for whatever reason crack and then intentionally shoot themselves and people around them.

    For every good guy that may have saved the day, there are conceal and carry bad guys that are able to legally compile an arsenal of lethal weapons and commit mass murder.

    There is no good guy test just the call for more people to arm themselves

    Parent

    OK, that's a different point (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    than what your stories were making, at least for most of the convo.

    For a GG to be helpful he needs to have a gun on him and be at the scene of the crime of the BGWG.

    In the vast majority of the cases the BGWGs simply ignore any and all gun laws, while the GGs mostly follow the laws. Therefor, in the vast majority of the cases, when the BGs commit crimes with guns, the GG present at the scene are unarmed.

    Parent

    Well, maybe not so much: (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 12:20:06 PM EST
    Eighty-two percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been bought legally, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine that defines a mass shooting as taking the lives of at least four people in a public place. Using that criteria, Mother Jones found 73 mass shootings since 1982.

    Link

    Map showing details, including legality of weapons used.

    Parent

    Actually, so much. (none / 0) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 12:47:00 PM EST
    Although I do not know why you are now choosing to discuss specifically only mass shooters, and not any other criminals who use guns, and only discuss specifically gun purchase laws, and not any of the other multitude of gun laws that exist, all (100%) of those shooters in the quote you provided were completely ignoring and breaking a number of laws while they committed their shootings.

    Whereas, afawk, none of the multitude of public persons present at the scenes were similarly carrying, using, etc., guns illegally.

    Thus my comment:

    Therefor, in the vast majority of the cases, when the BGs commit crimes with guns, the GG present at the scene are unarmed.


    Parent
    Sigh...if you go back into the (none / 0) (#102)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 01:35:31 PM EST
    morass that this discussion has become, you will note that every time I posted anything, Green would counter with, "but we're talking about mass shootings," and then he'd dismiss whatever I'd posted.

    I'm aware that the vast majority of guns used in "regular" crime are not legally owned by the shooter, and I don't disagree that people who commit crimes aren't too concerned with what the law is.

    In the Planned Parenthood shooting, there were armed security, and armed police who arrived at the scene; if trained individuals not only cannot stop the shooter, but incur injuries themselves, how are we to have confidence that a GGWG who happens to be at or near the scene would have gotten a better result?

    I get that you think more guns in the hands of these so-called good people will make it less likely that BGWG will be able to successfully do whatever it is they are doing with their weapons, but given the hundreds of millions of guns we already have here, it just seems to me that there should be more statistical proof that your theory is valid.

    Do you have any?  Or is this just a theory that makes sense to you?

    Parent

    Funny that you ask for statistical proof of my (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 01:55:54 PM EST
    point, when yours is not supported by your own statistics.

    But, anyway, sure.

    GGWGs that stopped BGWGs in the UK and Japan in 2012 = 0.

    (According to your numbers) GGWGs that stopped BGWGs in the US in 2012 = 259.

    Parent

    Do you have a link to your statistic? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    And how many gun-involved crimes were committed in the UK and Japan in 2012?  What's the overall violent crime rate there?

    Here - again - are some US numbers:

    This is also a nation in which, in 2012, there were 1.2 million violent crimes, defined as murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Or, put another way, 1.2 million scenarios in which there was potential for someone to kill in self-defense.

    Oh, and match those 259 justifiable homicides with the theft of about 232,000 guns each year, about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That's a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put in the hands of criminals.

    Those 259 justifiable homicides also pale compared with, in the same year, 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings, according to the FBI's Supplemental Homicide Report. The ratio for 2012, per the Violence Policy Center, was one justifiable killing for every 32 murders, suicides or accidental deaths (the ratio increases to 38-1 over the five-year period ending in 2012). That's a heavy price to pay.

    And at the risk of getting too wonky with the numbers and scenarios, I don't think either of us has anything to show that the 259 justifiable homicides were committed by guys who were "good" and who all used legally-owned weapons.  If one bad guy shoots/kills another bad guy in defense of his life, or in defense of someone else's life, that's a justifiable homicide, isn't it?  Is he a good guy just because he killed another bad guy?

    And, as has been pointed out, legally owning a weapon doesn't mean the person who owns it is a GG, just that he - or she - hasn't broken any gun laws.  And if GGWG has a mental breakdown, or gets drunk one night and decides he's going to settle some problem with a gun, the gun doesn't know that he's no longer "good;" it still works, still fires bullets, still kills.  We've seen that kind of crime with some regularity, haven't we?

    I think we're not going to agree on this, so maybe we can just leave it here, or if you prefer, go ahead and have the last word.

    Parent

    No it is the same point. (none / 0) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 05:13:59 PM EST
    There is no good guy test.

     For every example of a good guy that you can find that may save the day, there are lots more stupid guys/guys with conceal carry permits that do not secure their weapons and as a result children shoot themselves or others,  that accidentally shoot  themselves or others, some while trying to play the part of a good guy, that solved their anger issues, their drunken brawls or their irrational fears by shooting people, that intentionally shoot themselves and people around them and conceal and carry bad guys that are able to legally compile an arsenal of lethal weapons and commit mass murder.

    The ratio is not even close. The stupid, the careless, those who temporarily lose control, the suicidial and the bad guys with conceal and carry permits and the deaths and injuries that occurr on a daily basis far outnumber the minuscule numbers of lives that have been saved by a good guy with a gun.

    Parent

    It's why I posted the link - actually, (none / 0) (#88)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:28:32 PM EST
    links within a link - above - to show that the notion that the "good guys with guns" thing is a myth.

    Yes, there are instances where a good guy with a gun successfully defended against a bad guy, but the numbers are really, really small.  

    My concern now is that we have the incendiary rhetoric of one or more political candidates that is fueling an attitude of justifiable violence based on race, ethnicity and religion.

    I worry that we aren't going to see an end to the carnage, we're only just seeing the beginning.


    Parent

    From the rhetoric, I tend to agree (4.00 / 3) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:43:42 PM EST
    We are only seeing the beginning.

    This country is being eaten away at its core with politicians promoting hatred and violence as the American way.

    Parent

    And more (none / 0) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:22:44 PM EST
    Houston police say that an armed man's attempt to stop a carjacking went terribly wrong on Saturday night when he shot the vehicle's owner in the head, then fled the scene.
    Link

    and this disturbing bit of vigilante justice.

    The family of a Tucson man fatally shot after stealing two cases of beer says the shooter should face consequences.

    Police are still investigating the Sunday shooting ............Several people watched Ramon walk away from a convenience store on West Grant and North Oracle roads with the beer without paying..................One man followed Ramon across a major intersection and to the back of an auto repair shop.

    That's when Tucson police say Ramon picked up a log and may have charged the man.

    Sgt. Kimberly Bay said the shooter may have been acting in self-defense but that it's up to the county attorney whether he should face charges.

    Link


    Parent
    None of these deal with mass shootings, or (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Green26 on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 01:47:13 AM EST
    terrorist incidents. Different animal. There are lots of people like the American guys on the train from Brussels to Paris. They didn't even have a gun. Quick-thinking, fast-acting, and brave. Put those guys and my son in the concert hall in Paris with guns, and the result would have been different.

    Parent
    Well Not to Poiunt Out the Obvious... (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 10:22:47 AM EST
    ...it's because no one has ever saved the day in a mass shooting and we know one guy who said he didn't want to be mistaken for the shooter by police in Oregon.

    Stop with the concert hall BS, you are doing a lot of people a great deal of disservice by insisting that your son would have stopped a mass shooting, when it took their version of swat and the a lot of other cops to accomplish that.  Making up fake arguments to prove a point is actually doing the opposite, it proves you have no real evidence beyond fantasy.  And yes, your son stopping a mass shooting is a fantasy.

    Anyone can do it, if my dad would have been at Iwo Jima he would ensured no one died.  It's complete hogwash, if you can't argue your point without making stuff up you should probably reexamine your argument, not insist you are right about a fantasy.  I get that you think the world of you son, but it's no reason to insist that he would do things that no one has ever done, except maybe in the movies.  

    All these factious arguments about what you think would happen are doing nothing but aiding in the arms race going on in American streets, bad guns have some guns, so good guys get more, which puts more guns in bad guys hands, so the good guys get more.... and on and on.  When does it end, when every single person in the country has a gun, yeah history has proven that to be a very dangerous place.  Then what, machine guns for the good guys, I mean seriously.

    Parent

    Oh BS, Scott (1.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 12:11:14 AM EST
    The SWAT teams are always outside trying to figure out what is happening, without the ability to know exactly what is going on inside, deciding and planning how to intervene without unduly endangering those on the inside or themselves.

    People on the inside can see what is going on and know that their lives and many others are in great and immediate danger.  If they are brave, trained, or just plain stupid, they would get ready to shoot.

    Look at the 3 young Americans on the train from Brussels. They didn't even have guns, but they immediately went on the offensive. They thought their lives were in danger and they have nothing to lose. Look at the guys on the plane that went down in Penn on 9/11, the "let's roll" guys. They went on the attack almost quickly.  

    There is not a chance in hell that my son and his buddies, if armed, would not go on the attack. If I had been on that train from Brussels, I wouldn't have charged down the aisle, but, if I had a chance from the side when the guy was going by, I would have attacked. Just because you are cautious and apparently not the brave type, doesn't mean that there are not a lot of brave people in the world, and certainly in the US.

    I don't think I'd want someone like you in my foxhole, but I guarantee everyone would want my son. with them if they were in danger. What he and his buddies went through in Iraq was hard. Going door to door at night in Fallujah. Taking the towers in Ramadi, and then being shot at from multiple sides trying to hold them. Calling in airstrikes when pinned down. Having rocket s and RPGs reign down on them on their exposed FOBs. Going on patrols through Sadr City.  Being hit but staying in the fight.

    Parent

    Stop... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 01:12:40 PM EST
    ...foxholes, really, the guy who think foxholes have any bearing anything we are discussing.  I would not jump in yours because it's not WWII, you haven't been in the military, and the notion that there is any scenario in my future in which a fox hole would be needed, but other than that great point.

    You can't possibly know what another human being would do in a mass shooting, presuming you do is pretty much in line with your entire argument, fantasy & hogwash.

    I was trying to be reasonable and you went off the rails.

    This is the problem with the right and guns, too much TV, all of sudden a guy with a handgun is going to save 90 lives against terrorists with automatic weapons and suicide vests.  The same guy can out perform SWAT and an entire police force with his 9mm and 15 bullet clip.

    One cannot have a rationale discussion with someone who thinks every jack@ss carrying a gun is John Rambo.

    I am wondering why the military didn't just send your son in to eliminate terrorism in the entire Middle East.  Dummies.

    Parent

    neither your son (none / 0) (#107)
    by FlJoe on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 05:53:51 AM EST
    nor any armed civilian is an effective fighter in most situations.

    When your son was in Falluhjah he was part of a well trained squad, that was part of a well trained platoon, that was part of a well trained company executing a well thought out plan.

    There is a reason that any and all armies set up discrete units with rigid chains of command, mutual support and do endless training and planning. Even with all that, things will always devolve towards chaos. The fog of war is real.

    Your assertion that several uncoordinated, untrained, severely outgunned people caught totally by surprise would somehow prevail is just pure fantasy.

    BTW: The train story belies your whole point, these brave guys took care of business without guns.


    Parent

    The Red Dawn syndrome..or delusion.. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 01:27:20 PM EST
    isn't that the fantasy that the Ted Nuegents and Gun Owners of America promote 24-7?

    When gubmints and terrists get out of control, it's up to ragtag bands of private citizens armed with Bushmasters and AR 15s to prevail..

    Cue soundtrack..

    Parent

    Scott, you and Joe don't understand guns (1.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 10:41:09 PM EST
    or people who have learned to use them. I do. Scott, you must be wimp too. I can tell that you would freeze in a tough situation. You would have been quivering in your seat on Flight 911, while the let's-roll guys attacked. Many people I know, including my son, would do very well in tough situations. And Joe, my son was not always working with a well-trained unit. There were times when he or a few of them were separated, lost. Times they were cut off out in the desert. Had to steal a vehicle to haul ass across the desert to get away or to where they were going. Had to improvise.

    Parent
    Good God... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 11, 2015 at 09:17:34 AM EST
    ...now you know what I would do.  

    Your argument had devolved from making fact less claims, to fantasy, to name calling.

    Pathetic.

    Parent

    Good god back to you Scott (1.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Green26 on Fri Dec 11, 2015 at 11:10:51 PM EST
    You are trying to tell me what my son and his buddies would or would not do.  You don't have a clue. You don't understand guns. I can tell that you wouldn't even have the courage to defend yourself or your family in a tough situation.

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 06:36:24 AM EST
    are the one try to predict the unpredictable. The scene at the Bataclan was pure chaos, there is no telling what anybody would do, or even be capable of doing.

    Maybe you know a bit about guns, but you don't know squat about combat situations (no I never served but I can read). You keep asserting that your son and his "buddies" would mount a probably useless and almost certainly suicidal attack out of bravery, even though tactically it would be pure stupidity.

    When anybody points out the flaws in your "good guys with guns" saving the day fantasies you accuse them of being cowards instead of defending your arguments.

    Parent

    Joe, below is my comment that started the (none / 0) (#121)
    by Green26 on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 08:01:43 AM EST
    discussion, I believe.

    "People in gun states are likely to defend themselves and their families, and I think they would try to defend themselves and take on shooters, including mass murderers. Many of them are skilled with guns, and their instincts would be to defend and attack, not hide."

    You can mischaracterize what I've said all you want, but that is what I said.

    I have never used the word "coward" in this discussion. I assume you know there's a difference between being "not brave" and being a "coward". In my experience, some people are brave, and many are not.

    If anyone in my family is ever unfortunate enough to be in a mass shooting situation, I would rather have someone like my son and his friends, with guns, in or near the action, than to have everyone unarmed. They might not be successful, but they would take action.

    It's interesting how many of you have to try to move the discussion topic to something it isn't, or create a straw man, when you are apparently unable to address the comment that was actually made.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 09:06:43 AM EST
    tell Scott  
    you wouldn't even have the courage to defend yourself or your family in a tough situation.
    I consider that an accusation of cowardice by my understanding of the English language.

    Parent
    Nope, Joe, you continue to be wrong (1.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Green26 on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 11:33:17 AM EST
    Not having enough courage, is not the same as being a coward. You just can't seem to address what is being said, and have to keep making up stuff.

    Parent
    We know what you say (none / 0) (#127)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 02:24:17 PM EST
    Scott, you must be wimp too. I can tell that you would freeze in a tough situation.
    you can not stay away from ad hominem attacks.

     

    Parent

    Yup, the wimp thing came to mind then, (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Green26 on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 07:11:35 PM EST
    so I said it. Don't think he would do anything in a tough situation like the shooting situations. Think I'm right too. Most people wouldn't. My son and his friends would. I would in some minor situations.

    Joe, when are you going to address what I said initially that got this whole mini-discussion going. Are you afraid to address that, or are you now seeing that I really didn't say anything controversial and that what you've been saying is wrong.?

    Also, how brave are you? Would you try to protect your family in a tough shooting situation, or just hide on the floor? Are you comfortable with guns? What kind of guy are you? More of a guy who hides behind a keyboard? Just curious. Assume you won't answer, and that's okay.

    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#130)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 07:36:55 PM EST
    brave enough to live my life without needing to carry a weapon or feel like I need to have armed people nearby.

    I have already addressed my opinion on your good guy with a gun fantasies, so good night.

    Parent

    Joe, you obviously don't understand guns (none / 0) (#132)
    by Green26 on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 07:55:04 PM EST
    and don't understand the training of Rangers and other special ops types. Thus, you have no way of evaluating what I said people comfortable with guns and trained for combat, can do with them, and might be able to do in a crisis situation. Your "fantasy" comment gives away your lack of knowledge and understanding. I could see this in your posts, as well as Scott's.

    Parent
    You really should (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 07:39:40 PM EST
    Just shut the f@ck up you mouthy old fart.  

    Parent
    Capt, aren't you a nice one tonight? (1.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Green26 on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 07:57:29 PM EST
    That comment really helps with the discussion, doesn't it? Does it make you feel better about yourself? I suppose Joe will be unable to tell you not to name-call. Assume he'll be hypocritical on this one.

    Parent
    You call people cowards (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:49:48 AM EST
    and liars and then whine when someone retaliates.

    The only way you personally could possibly save the day is if you whined the shooters to death.

    Parent

    It would probably be safer for innocent (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:31:49 AM EST
    Bystanders too :) If they could handle it :)

    Parent
    Very, very true. (none / 0) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:08:04 AM EST


    Parent
    What discussion pin head (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 08:01:31 PM EST
    The one where you call people wimps and cowards and liars who you don't know the first f@&cking thing about.  Your are an idiot.  A rude delusional idiot and I'm saying it because the people you are repeatedly insulting are to civil.  
    And yeah that felt good.  Piss off.

    Parent
    Bad (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 08:36:34 PM EST
    Captain, bad but at least honest about it. Two or three shots of Wild Turkey and I would be saying the same thing, or worse.

    Parent
    Capt, didn't call anyone a coward (1.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Green26 on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 10:57:15 PM EST
    But since you are continue to call me names, I will call you a loser. No substance in you. You join the discussion late, and then lead with name-calling. I may have to keep my eye on you.

    Parent
    "I may have to keep my eye on you" (none / 0) (#140)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 11:09:44 PM EST
    Is that a threat? I'm sure Capt Howdy is just terrrrrrified now.

    And saying that someone is lacking in courage is, indeed, calling him a coward.

    You mouthed off, now you are tap dancing like mad to recover.

    It isn't working.

    And, yeah, I think Scott probably knows a lot more about guns that you, and has a whole helluva lot more courage.

    Parent

    Nope, didn't mouth off at all (none / 0) (#147)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    Just made a true and innocuous comment. Tben, some who appear to be blinded by  anti-gun sentiments had to step in, make some untrue and silly comments, and come after me a bit. That's okay. Doesn't bother me. I'm comfortable with my views. I can see the lack of substance of many of their comments. But I will be keeping my eyes open and may have to comment back on some comments by some of these posters.

    Parent
    Ooooooooooo.... (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    Comments

    Parent
    I guess it's a good thing (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 06:44:39 AM EST
    I have a gun.

    Parent
    He reminds me more of the (none / 0) (#146)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:22:55 AM EST
    turkey in the Christmas Vacation dinner scene...full of hot air.

    Parent
    What does Donald always say? (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 02:29:19 PM EST
    dogs bark as the caravan passes on.

    Parent
    What makes you think Scott doesn't (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 09:25:16 PM EST
    Understand guns? Pretty sure he was active duty once. You don't get to be active duty and not understand guns. At that point it simply becomes a tally of how many guns you know intimately.

    Parent
    Here is the thing (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 09:58:59 AM EST
    Scott served in the military. You did not. Yet, here you are telling a military veteran that he does not understand guns and he is a coward.

    You were not in the military let alone in heavy combat. You did not receive military training that makes you an expert on combat situations. You personally performed no brave acts. Basically, you are just riding on your son's coat tails and insulting military veterans for no other reason than they do not share your opinion.

    Parent

    And hardly a new thing (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 10:32:18 AM EST
    Calling people liars and cowards who present information that conflict with his paranoid fantasy world view he and his buddies whip each other up with is all that persons got.

    Parent
    Yeah, I'm positive he did (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 09:29:56 PM EST
    Because he brought up some of the college payment possibilities for Josh that only someone who is active duty knows about.

    And sadly but truthfully there are a lot of dead unsuccessful brave people. Still brave sure. But not successfully so and now also deceased.

    Parent

    I think you are talking about Scott (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:52:48 AM EST
    Scott has stated that he has served and I believe him.

    OTOH, Green has stated that he did not serve and is using his son's service as his rational to insult a military veteran.

    Personally, I would prefer to rely on expert opinion.

    Tactical Experts Destroy the NRA's Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy
    ...The Nation spoke to several people who do--including combat veterans and former law enforcement officers--and who believe that the NRA's heroic gunslinger mythology is a dangerous fantasy that bears little resemblance to reality.
    ..
    Those interviewed for this article agreed that the key distinction isn't between "good guys" and "bad guys," because intentions are less important than the rigorous--and continuous--training that it takes to effectively handle firearms in high-stress situations.
    ...
    ..David Chipman, a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Chipman, who spent several years on the agency's SWAT team, says, "Training for a potentially deadly encounter meant, at a minimum, qualifying four times a year throughout my 25-year career. And this wasn't just shooting paper--it meant doing extensive tactical exercises. And when I was on the SWAT team we had to undergo monthly tactical training."

    The military and law enforcement agencies believe that continuous training is necessary to maintain the skills and judgement necessary to engage in combat or active shooter situations.

    To the best of my knowledge, they do not believe that blowhards become experts through osmosis.

    Parent

    Yes, referring to Scott (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 05:48:49 PM EST
    I was not aware that Green had any service record either.

    And if you have been active duty it is a gun culture. Not only are you familiar with your service weapon, but likely receive training on other weapons as well.

    Parent

    Green clearly stated (none / 0) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 06:10:30 PM EST
    In a previous comment that he never served.

    Parent
    And the train guys would have done just fine (none / 0) (#115)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 10:43:24 PM EST
    with guys. They were brave and had great reactions. Guys like you wouldn't do well.

    Parent
    I took a big knife away from a guy (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    who was a lot bigger than me by grabbing the blade and snapping it off in my hand. And I've had guns pointed at me. Another time, I had to literally hold someone's guts in for twenty minutes while I waited for the EMT..

    Did you ever do that? No, you didn't.

    So, a word to the wise: don't talk about people you don't know an effing thing about.

    Parent

    "Guys like you?" What in the (none / 0) (#136)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 08:50:37 PM EST
    everloving fk do you know about these guys?  

    Other than that they're calling you out on your BS, which you're apparently not used to.

    The reality, the truth is, that no one knows how they will react to an attack or a threat until it's right there and happening.  It's possible that your highly-trained and weapons-familiar son could find himself in a situation where he would decide the risks to others of acting were too great.  Yeah, he could.  He could have a moment where he froze.  Yeah, because that happens to people - even the highly-trained ones.  

    We just never know.

    But you think you can assume that Scott and jondee would wimp out, would not have what it takes to defend their own and others' lives.  Golly, for all that you think you know about them, you don't even know that Scott is a veteran of the first Gulf War, that he grew up hunting, so your assumptions are meaningless.  It seems you have such a strong need to make your son into some kind of imaginary hero that you'll lash out at whoever happens to be nearby, and impugn their character.

    What do you think that says about you?  Nothing good, that's for sure.  Building someone up by tearing someone else down is, well, the kind of thing people with low self-esteem do.  Do you feel that bad about yourself?

    There's nothing new about people not agreeing - happens here all the time.  But I rather think no one will take the time to engage you from here on out, having learned in your comments that you are incapable of doing so honestly and with integrity.

    Oh, well.

    Parent

    Cognitive dissonance (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 04:26:50 PM EST
    Reality:
    Look at the 3 young Americans on the train from Brussels. They didn't even have guns, but they immediately went on the offensive. They thought their lives were in danger and they have nothing to lose. Look at the guys on the plane that went down in Penn on 9/11, the "let's roll" guys. They went on the attack almost quickly.  
    Imagination:
    There is not a chance in hell that my son and his buddies, if armed, would not go on the attack.
    Emphasis mine. In your imagination, your son would act bravely... if he was armed.

    You are granting unknown, armed cowboys magical crime prevention powers, while simultaneously possibly not giving your son enough credit. He might act even if unarmed, you know.

    Parent

    Yes, my son would do well if not armed too. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 10:45:39 PM EST
    But I have no doubt he would take action if armed. Not everyone gets lucky to charge an armed terrorist whose gun is jammed.

    Parent
    Of the 3 Americans on the train (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 05:59:53 PM EST
    Only two had served. Alek (the National Guardsman who had served in Afghanistan and had dealt with suicide bombers) punched his buddy Stone in the arm and said "Go". Stone said he had no time to think, and fine. He trusted Alek's assessment. He had been asleep before Alek punched him in the arm. Alek has pretty severe PTSD though. In this instance it worked for him. It's probably not going to work so well with a significant other or children though. You do understand the lifetime price he will pay to have that "trigger finger" right?

    Parent
    "shot in the arms and legs" (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 06:14:19 AM EST
    while no doubt aiming at the center of mass, the torso.  Because that's what you're trained to do if you're trained at all.

    That was a brilliant example of just how dangerously poor people are at aiming their weapons in a high pressure, high adrenaline situation.

    How many innocents would Concealed-Carry Rambo have hit in a crowded theatre or auditorium?

    Parent

    The statistics (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 05:41:57 PM EST
    do not back you up. The most heavily armed states have the highest per capita murder rates though I'm sure you're going to not believe that either.

    Parent
    Actual statistics. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:25:03 PM EST
    Highest gun murder rate states:

    State / gun % / gun murder rate per 1000

    Louisiana            44.1%     7.7
    Missouri            41.7%       5.4
    Maryland            21.3%       5.1
    South Carolina     42.3%       4.5
    Michigan             38.4%       4.2

    Highest gun ownership states:

    Wyoming         59.7%       0.9
    Alaska              57.8%       2.7
    Montana         57.7%       1.2
    South Dakota     56.6%       1.0
    West Virginia     55.4%       1.5

    Parent

    Ga6, don't know what you are talking about, (none / 0) (#56)
    by Green26 on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 11:05:09 PM EST
    citing murder rates, but I was talking about defense rates. Two completely different things. People in gun states are likely to defend themselves and their families, and I think they would try to defend themselves and take on shooter, including mass murderers. Many of them are skilled with guns, and their instincts would be to defend and attack, not hide.

    Parent
    They may be two different things, but the (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    numbers don't support your theory.

    Coincidentally, just 13 hours before those atrocious killings, the Violence Policy Center released a fresh analysis of federal crime and health data that explores how often potential victims actually turned the tables. Parsing 2012 numbers, the center counted 259 justifiable gun-related homicides, or incidents in which authorities ruled that killings occurred in self-defense.

    That's in a nation in which there are some 300 million firearms, nearly one for every person (though only a little over a third of Americans own guns -- and there's an interesting take on that here, and on the ramifications of gun ownership on murder rates here, and while you're reading links, this is of interest, too). This is also a nation in which, in 2012, there were 1.2 million violent crimes, defined as murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Or, put another way, 1.2 million scenarios in which there was potential for someone to kill in self-defense.

    Oh, and match those 259 justifiable homicides with the theft of about 232,000 guns each year, about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That's a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put in the hands of criminals.

    Those 259 justifiable homicides also pale compared with, in the same year, 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings, according to the FBI's Supplemental Homicide Report. The ratio for 2012, per the Violence Policy Center, was one justifiable killing for every 32 murders, suicides or accidental deaths (the ratio increases to 38-1 over the five-year period ending in 2012). That's a heavy price to pay.

    There's more, and I would suggest you take advantage of the embedded linkage, as well - but the conclusion is this:

    The notion that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun is a romanticized vision of the nature of violent crime.


    Parent
    Anne, none of those stats deal with mass (none / 0) (#70)
    by Green26 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    murder situations, of the type I'm talking about, so they are not relevant. Thank for providing them, but they are N/A. Also, these look like stats put out by organizations who are trying to show that gun ownership is a bad thing.

    Parent
    They (none / 0) (#74)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:57:01 PM EST
    are relevant to your overarching theory that more armed people everywhere will lead to a safer country. It just won't, common sense tells you that, don't even need some fancy stats.  

    Parent
    ISIS only hates the West! (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 05:04:01 AM EST
    Additionally, the US, UK, and Australia made emergency airdrops to Yazidis who had fled to a mountain range (see Sinjar massacre, § Refugee crisis in the Sinjar Mountains), and provided weapons to the Kurdish Peshmerga defending them. ISIL's actions against the Yazidi population resulted in nearly 200,000 refugees and several thousand killed and kidnapped.

    In 1640, 40,000 Ottoman soldiers attacked Yazidi communities around Mount Sinjar, killing 3,060 Yazidis during battle, then raiding and setting fire to 300 Yazidi villages and murdering 1,000-2,000 Yazidis who had taken refuge in caves around the town of Sinjar;[10]

    in 1892, Sultan Abdulhamid II ordered a campaign of mass conscription or murder of Yazidis as part of his campaign to Islamize the Ottoman Empire, which also targeted Armenians and other Christians.[11]

    On 10 August 2014, according to statements by the Iraqi government and others, ISIL militants buried alive an undefined number of Yazidi women and children in northern Iraq in an attack that killed 500 people, in what has been described as genocide.[21]

    Those who escaped across the Tigris River into Kurdish-controlled areas of Syria on 10 August gave accounts of how they had seen individuals also attempting to flee who later died.[13][22][23]

    On 15 August, in the Yazidi village of Khocho, south of Sinjar, after the whole population had received the jihadist ultimatum to convert or be killed, over 80 men were killed.[24][25] A witness recounted that the villagers were first converted under duress,[26] but when the village elder refused to convert, all of the men were taken in trucks under the pretext of being led to Sinjar, and gunned down along the way.[27] According to reports from survivors interviewed by OHCHR, on 15 August, the entire male population of the Yazidi village of Khocho, up to 400 men, were rounded up and shot by ISIL, and up to 1,000 women and children were abducted.

    Parent

    Who are you trying to convince, Counselor... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 06:26:21 PM EST
    Us or yourself?

    I didn't write the article (3.50 / 2) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:01:31 PM EST
    I happen to agree with much of it.
    My position since day 1 has been if we don't want to be attacked, we should stay out of the middle east. I've also said repeatedly we should be more concerned about the lone and looney wolves who never leave home, than the returning ISIS fighters. Let those who want to go join ISIS go -- they'll probably end up being used as cannon fodder.

    ISIS isn't the only terror group -- if they were defeated tomorrow, by next week al Qaida or some other group would rise to take its place. They all hate America because of our intervention.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, with all due respect to ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    ... your concern about our active intervention in the Middle East, that's a clock which is not going to be turned back, nor is it a pooch that can be unscrewed. That particular debate ended 25 years ago in October 1990, when Congress first authorized President George H.W. Bush to use U.S. military force to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

    The question that's presently before us is what to do about the present problem, one which is admittedly, likely and unfortunately our own creation. I would suggest that saying "sorry, our bad!", turning our backs and walking away at this point won't flip the calendar pages backward, and will probably only further inflame matters over there, even worse than they already are.

    We do not have the luxury of becoming isolationist, with a hyperviolent caliphate having now reared its ugly head in the region as a direct result of our military intervention. We have to be actively engaged in the search for solutions.

    We broke it, and we own it. Therefore, we have a responsibility to mitigate the damage we caused to the region as best we can, and to accept the likelihood that such steps must come at the ultimate expense of the West's business interests in the region -- business interests which, after all, are really the root cause for that region's perpetual state of crisis in the first place.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I beg to differ .... (none / 0) (#9)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:51:53 PM EST
    If only we could stay out of it, but I don't think trying to walk back conveys anything other than the weakness that this predatory & expansive force sees as an invitation.  Believe me, I wish that it were so easy to wish it away or walk back or something, but the pattern of power actions by DAESH suggests only their desire to grow and subjugate populaces based upon perceptions of their invincibility and/or success.

    Most of my professional (if not personal) life has been centered on the effective force of negotiation. This international instrument of unmitigated terror, DAESH, defies any realistic notion of talk.  IMHO, this group kills and keeps killing; and, that pattern of ugly should not be expected to yield anything but a nightmare if not confronted--smartly & strongly, as the President states--in the language that they understand.

    Heck, the only bringing-together that ISIS/ISIL seems to have accomplished to date is the potential enabling (if only short-term, situational) of a necessary alliance with Russia in the classic sense of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    Parent

    Speaking about (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 09:20:28 PM EST
    the "enemy of our enemy," I've, naturally, been quite interested in the whole Turkey/Russia, shoot down, situation.

    I've doubted from the beginning that the reason for the downing of the Russian plane was due to a micro-second incursion into Turkish airspace,(if there even was an incursion.) Great countries just don't do those things for such silly pretexts.  

    Russia was about to publicly disclose Turkey's role in assisting ISIS with it's oil production, and, they were assisting the Kurds who stand in the way of Turkey's expansion plan of consolidating several pro-Turkey groups on it's Eastern border, and, making them into a "buffer zone" on that border. Thus, Turkey's aggressive approach to the Kurds. IMO, Russia is saying, and, doing what we should have been from the get-go.

    And, its not just me, several high ranking U.S. officers have gone public with the same conclusion.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 04:10:49 PM EST
    A 2 for the hostess from, well, you can check.

    Parent
    HAH! (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 04:44:04 PM EST
    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
    -- The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), Strength to Love (1963)

    She should wear that "2.00" proudly as a badge of honor, considering the crackpot source of that troll rating.

    Parent

    Haha (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 05:40:57 PM EST
    I coming by and trolling with 2's is the best he can do these days since no one was falling for the wingnut welfare talking points.

    Parent
    hush now (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by sj on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 05:47:23 PM EST
    Don't jinx our good luck.

    Parent
    I think we should be able to rate ratings (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 06:09:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks for noticing that, Cap'n (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 06:24:34 AM EST
    I went back and checked the 5 box.  I may get snarky but do not for a moment underrate the seriousness or high quality of Jeralyn's commitments and this endeavor.

    Do any of y'all run blogs or websites?  When (like Jeralyn) you back up your writing with facts and research, citations, quotations, and hyperlinks, it is an enormous time sink.  It's an abyss into which huge chunks of your life have fallen.

    Parent

    the anti-ref backlash will do what? (none / 0) (#11)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 09:59:05 PM EST
    The anti-ref backlash will help ISIS recruiting?

    Is that a theory of yours or a supposition or a proven fact or conclusion of some type?

    There are really at least 2 kinds of anti-ref backlash.  One is limiting the number taken in or not taking in more  . . . and the other is the use of violence and arson against those in the usa or Germany already.

    I haven't read of too many actual attacks on Muslims here in the USA in the last six months; I am not saying that they don't happen.  Here in Seattle there is a neighborhood called "Capitol Hill" and a lot of people are upset about a rising rate of anti-gay and similar hate crimes and assaults.  Of course, the truth is that crime itself has been rising in capitol hill of a variety of kinds, assault and robbery against ordinary people, hate crime against blacks, hate crimes against lgbtq . . .  No report of anti-muslim hate crimes in capitol hill news that I know of.

    Crosscut is the latest Seattle media outlet to take on hate crime on Capitol Hill:

    It turns out he's not alone. There is strong anecdotal evidence that anti-LGBTQ violence is rising in Capitol Hill, Seattle's historically gay neighborhood.

    I don't have any particularly strong views for or against the anti-gay hate crimes,  other than I think that foolish assaults against anyone are bad and wrong, but based on the articles in the news, there seems to be more anti-gay crimes than anti-Muslim crimes, at least so far as concerns Seattle.  

    Do anti-gay hate crimes in Seattle contribute to more people joining pro-gay terrorist groups?

    Though it is probably true that 100 years of KKK and white oppression of the blacks contributed to the formation of the black panthers.  

    Christians were killed or persecuted or terrorized by Rome for 300 years and then God overturned the Roman Empire's policy . . . and within about 100 years, the Christians had begun to do persecutions of heretics and pagans of their own.  When they lacked power, they did not persecute; when they had it, they did.

    badly treating germany after WWI contributed to the rise of Hitler.  

    more anti-Muslim backlash (none / 0) (#12)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:09:07 PM EST
    abcnews published photos of the dead woman shooter with her face visible and her not wearing a burka.  One or more Muslims complained that since the woman normally wore a burka, that publishing a photo showing her face could in fact by offensive to her family and others.

    The complaint was not well received by the rest of the public . . . who lack the normal Muslim sensibilities . . .

    One of my Muslim neighbors says that the photo is inspiring her to learn more about ISIS .  . . and how the Islamic community needs a Caliphate and how Turkey was wrong to abolish the Caliphate 100 years ago by that secularist infidel Ataturk.

    This is how some people feel about Climate Change (none / 0) (#13)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:55:30 PM EST
    It's here. We can't do much about it. Doing the smaller things that can be done, are not particularly meaningful, will be very expensive and will impact economies and standards of living adversely. Hopefully, much of it turns out not to be caused by people, and more by natural things, and will go away, as has happened in the past (before there was as much carbon release).

    The other side of no. 7 (none / 0) (#14)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:58:15 PM EST
    Well-planned western actions can be done and make things better.

    Do some of you really think that ISIS and related terrorist actions will go away if we ignore them?

    Another question (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    As long as dangers are going to exist in this world, like drunk drivers and crazy armed Americans, we have the choice of cowering in fear and wasting billions of dollars, or accepting that freedom isn't risk-free (cf. drunks and armed Americans) and going about our business.  It's why we have insurance companies.

    45 Americans have died from foreign terrorism since 9/11.  Your chances of being struck by lightning are dozens of times higher.  Your chances of being killed by an American citizen terrorist are higher.

    We don't cower in fear and spend billions of dollars to protect ourselves from armed Americans and drunk drivers.  Why should we do that for a statistically insignificant risk?

    Also: if the purpose of terrorism is to strike fear into my heart, why should I do what my enemies want me to do and be afraid?  If someone wants to kill me, they will succeed because I am not hiding.

    Parent

    Repack,.......Repack, Repack, (none / 0) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 11:33:50 AM EST
    Like that old actor of, "Bedtime for Bonzo" fame would say, "there (heh,heh) you go again."

    The ole, "3-card monte trick, quick, where's the pea? nothing up this sleeve, whoa, look over there!" Yup, nothing but sleazy tricks, slight of hand, and, delusions, oops, s'cuse me, I mean, illusions.

    You see, I got a 97 on my 7th. grade geometry exam (I sat right behind Bette Kallio, but, that's another story.) So, you can't trick me. Oh, you can try, but, then again, you can try and chew a bugger for 10 minutes straight without stopping, but, what does that prove? About as much as your phony, "Your chances of being struck by lightning.........." scam.

    You see, in math there's this little thingaroo called equivalence, a sort of rule, or, Axiom. But, here you took that rule and smashed it to pieces. You took "foreign terrorism," a brand new phenomenon, and tried to make some sort of equivalence with "lightning," a multi-billion year old phenomenon. Naughty boy, naughty, naughty Boy. Oooweee, if you were in Mrs. Sommers class, would your jiggly little pink cheeks be 7 shades of crimson by now!

    To make your transparent trick valid you would have to record, say, a million years of foreign terrorist attacks. So, add up that number and set it over there.

    Then, you would have to climb to the top of the Empire State Building, hold your hand (gripping a horse shoe) over your head, for, oh, a million years, and, then, add up the number of times you were struck.

    You see how that works? One number to the left, another to the right. And, voila! Now, we can see what your chances of being attacked by foreign terrorism is vs being struck by lightning.

    Sorry it so long.

    BTW, I was just kidding about holding the horseshoe.
     

    Parent

    This is scholarship? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 12:31:55 PM EST
    You see, I got a 97 on my 7th. grade geometry exam

    Why are you trying to compare meaningless scholarship with me?  I was off the chart, 99th percentile in everything, National Merit Scholar, and that result didn't change my life in the slightest because I didn't go to college.  From your attempt at humor, you probably think you are a clever writer.  My book is in print, is yours?

    This just in: geometry has nothing to do with statistics.  I ignore unavoidable perils such as lightning, drunk drivers, Isis or Dylan Roof, although I do look both ways before crossing a street.

    Parent

    Repack, are you saying that (none / 0) (#29)
    by Green26 on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    since the chance of being struck by lightning is so low, people don't need to take any preventative action? They can keep playing golf and staying or going outside in lightning storms? Same with seat belts. While seat belts prevent injury and death, I assume the chances of most people dying or being injured not wearing a seat belt isn't that high--so why bother?

    Parent
    Last Time I Checked... (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 11:58:04 AM EST
    ...we didn't go to war with things we cannot defeat, like lightening because we would lose.  We took a trillion dollar shot at spreading democracy in the ME, we lost.  We tried to defeat terrorism in Afghanistan, we failed.  It's a war we cannot win, you can not defeat ideas, even really bad one, with bombs and bullets.

    Escalating it is only going to increase their numbers, we know this for a fact, but instead of moving forward with the lessons of the past, we are going to gamble that this time we will be victorious.  We won't, recently history has proven we can't.  I prefer we spend a trillion dollars on helping people here, and you never know, that idea might spread, that dollars helping folks instead of killing them is a way better risk/reward.

    I like my freedom better than the odds of getting killed by a terrorist.  Giving it up to decrease something that has almost a zero chance of happening, isn't a good deal for anyone.

    Parent

    O.K. you got me, I apologize (none / 0) (#117)
    by NYShooter on Fri Dec 11, 2015 at 12:54:14 AM EST
    I vow, from now on, (if there is a "from now on") to only converse with you in a very     serious     manner.

    O.K. I admit, I was screwing around a little bit. Of course, that was before I knew I was in the presence of a National Merit Scholarship recipient. But, that only makes the silly, adolescent statements you made all the more puzzling. Either you don't understand the mathematical principals involved, or, you purposely tried to fool everyone. You used the same low-intellect, low-knowledge, and/or, low ethics, that grifters such as Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) used when he claimed that a snowball in February was proof-positive MMGW didn't exist.

    I don't know about you, but, I was pretty offended by that disingenuous ruse, weren't you? I mean, what level of goober did he think he was talking to? That's kind of the response your nonsensical analogy elicited. Again, you have to admit, how can you use the odds of being killed/injured in a terrorist attack vs the odds of all those rare occurrences? How deceitful is that? Terrorist attacks as we know them are a very recent phenomenon. Of course the odds of something happening vs a brand new event is going to be infinitesimally small.

    Anyway, if my attempted low-brow humor offended your sensibilities I genuinely apologize.

    Too bad though, intellectual discourse would be a welcome addition here. May be some other time.


    Parent

    Can We Get Carson & Trump... (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 12:11:06 PM EST
    ...a subscription to Foreign Policy Magazine ?
    Trump (none / 0) (#50)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 06:43:39 PM EST
    is proposing to ban all Muslims, surely that is overreacting and definitely and a  huge reward for ISIS.

    Cruz has popped ahead (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 07:19:49 PM EST
    In Iowa.  He has to feed all those good Christian cacus goers some red meat.

    Parent
    Follow the Money (none / 0) (#54)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:43:49 PM EST
    Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters last Wednesday in San Bernardino that left 14 dead and 17 injured, received a wire transfer of $28,500 just two weeks before his fatal attack.

    Citing a source "close to the investigation," Fox News says Nov. 18 Farook had $28,500 placed in his bank account from WebBank.com. On Nov. 20 he took out $10,000 in cash, and in the days leading up to the attack he made a series of $5,000 transfers to his mother.

    Like I said (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:44:27 AM EST
    ...  He financed it by maxing out credit cards he didn't plan to repay.  

    There are a lot of ways to come up with quick cash if you plan to commit crimes a whole lot worse than wire fraud.

    Parent

    Webbank is a loan company (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:22:03 AM EST
    The $28,5k was a loan. He got the rest from his bank account. So there's no funding from outside sources.

    Parent
    Comparisons are eerie (none / 0) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    1938 - Hitler calls for Jews to register.
    2016 - Trump calls for Muslins to register.

    You can't make this stuff up

    That is one creepy picture (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 11:06:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Over-Reacting to ISIS Threat | 149 comments (149 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment