• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

Terrorists strike yet again

_HighVoltage_ said:
But you said it yourself - you wouldn't actually interfere in a situation if it posed significant risk for your own life or the lives of your loved ones.
Click to expand...
No, if the situation posed a risk to myself or my loved ones, I would absolutely interfere. What I wouldn't do is abandon my loved ones and run towards gunfire. That's just me though - I've had this conversation with plenty of people who would not only rise to the occasion but would go to their cars, grab rifles, and rush back in to stop the threat.


_HighVoltage_ said:
Most people would behave like that, even in a non-gun-free zone. I have no problem with the claim that guns are for self-defense. But the selfless hero with a gun sacrificing his life for others is a very rare occurrence.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it's a rare occurrence because mass shootings happen in gun free zones. No one is stupid enough to charge a guy with a rifle on a hope and prayer; however, if they have their own gun they might.
 
LeVeL said:
No, if the situation posed a risk to myself or my loved ones, I would absolutely interfere. What I wouldn't do is abandon my loved ones and run towards gunfire. That's just me though - I've had this conversation with plenty of people who would not only rise to the occasion but would go to their cars, grab rifles, and rush back in to stop the threat.
Click to expand...

Sorry, poor wording. I meant, you wouldn't interfere to save others if doing so would put you and your loved ones at harm.
 
public said:
Plot twist: the bad guys were good guys with guns gone bad.

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan
Click to expand...

Damnit need to +rep you

- - - Updated - - -

_HighVoltage_ said:
So let me get this straight - I'm the one who is reading into things, you are one who just knows reality? You are not reading into it as well?
Click to expand...
Fair enough we are both interpreting it a certain way.


No. In the context of the NRA using the phrase, it does not include LEOs. No one is debating gun control for LEOs. And no one is suggesting taking the guns from police officers - the NRA is not lobbying against that. The NRA speaks strictly in the context of civilian gun rights. LEOs are good guys, but the NRA doesn't mean them when they use the phrase.
Click to expand...
That's just your interpretation that comes from a certain political standpoint, my interpretation is more broad than that.

That's probably true. So where does that leave us? Statistically it doesn't matter if there are good guys with guns in high profile shooting situations?
Click to expand...
As Lev rightly pointed out already you cannot make any kind of conclusion as to statistics of private citizens stopping mass shooters, because mass shooters typically select gun free zones where people are not allowed to carry in the first place.
 
prizrak said:
As Lev rightly pointed out already you cannot make any kind of conclusion as to statistics of private citizens stopping mass shooters, because mass shooters typically select gun free zones where people are not allowed to carry in the first place.
Click to expand...

The Nevada shooter - a state with average amount of gun owners - wouldn't have been stopped even if 100% of people carried miniguns and bazookas. He was up there, perched and invisible. Most shooters kill half a dozen people and injure another dozen before the "responsible gun owner hero saves the day" when they do, very rarely, too.
 
mpicco said:
The Nevada shooter - a state with average amount of gun owners - wouldn't have been stopped even if 100% of people carried miniguns and bazookas. He was up there, perched and invisible. Most shooters kill half a dozen people and injure another dozen before the "responsible gun owner hero saves the day" when they do, very rarely, too.
Click to expand...

And your point here is?
 
Militants Kill 305 at Sufi Mosque in Egypt?s Deadliest Terrorist Attack
Militants detonated a bomb inside a crowded mosque in the Sinai Peninsula on Friday and then sprayed gunfire on panicked worshipers as they fled, killing at least 305 people and wounding at least 128 others.
Click to expand...
Why did nobody here pick up this attack from the day before yesterday? Maybe because those who were attacked were muslims as well? Terrorism is terrorism, regardless who or what is being attacked... :(
 
Eye-Q said:
Militants Kill 305 at Sufi Mosque in Egypt?s Deadliest Terrorist Attack

Why did nobody here pick up this attack from the day before yesterday? Maybe because those who were attacked were muslims as well? Terrorism is terrorism, regardless who or what is being attacked... :(
Click to expand...

It got almost no coverage in the US mainstream press and what coverage there was was on par with, "Something happened. And now for sports." Not a lot of details - instead the mass media was busy covering such important matters of whether an Administration figure actually had pecan pie and whether that was a sign of them being the worst Administration ever. Kind of tells you where the media's priorities are.

There was one particularly glurge-filled editorial that equated the attack to 'an attack on civilization itself.' https://nypost.com/2017/11/24/attack-on-egyptian-mosque-targets-civilization-itself/

My first reaction to the above was, "So, an attack on a mosque by people ostensibly of the same religion is 'targeting civilization itself' but you're completely silent about the ongoing terror campaign and massacres conducted in the name of that same religion against Coptic Christians in Egypt?"
 
Eye-Q said:
Militants Kill 305 at Sufi Mosque in Egypt?s Deadliest Terrorist Attack

Why did nobody here pick up this attack from the day before yesterday? Maybe because those who were attacked were muslims as well? Terrorism is terrorism, regardless who or what is being attacked... :(
Click to expand...
I think your insinuation that the failure of anyone to post this automatically declares us as unsympathetic to civilian casualties of a particular stripe (in this case, Muslims) speaks more to your own biases, not anyone else?s. I find your accusations despicable.
 
Eye-Q said:
Militants Kill 305 at Sufi Mosque in Egypt?s Deadliest Terrorist Attack

Why did nobody here pick up this attack from the day before yesterday? Maybe because those who were attacked were muslims as well? Terrorism is terrorism, regardless who or what is being attacked... :(
Click to expand...

I thought it was customary in this thread to wait for a reply from the usual suspects before starting the ignorant offtopic insensitive (poor english prevents me from using better words here) bashing?
 
Congrats, President Trump, for fixing the middle east.
 
What about War Crimes? Both sides have committed them, but guess who has committed more?
 
GRtak;n3541908 said:
What about War Crimes? Both sides have committed them, but guess who has committed more?
Click to expand...
You don't like to face the fact that the side you're defending is full of terrorists so you want to exclude terrorism from the conversation? :no:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top