I think we are going to just end up disagreeing on this. In my opinion, it is pretty clear that gun free zones are targets. But for the sake of discussion, I would like point out a few specific contentions I have.

 

You say that most shooters are diagnosed with mental illnesses. I agree with that, but are they diagnosed before or after the fact. It is very easy to say that someone who went and shot 20 kids in an elementary school has a mental illness, but prior to that did anyone think he was mentally ill? What about the two recently? My point is that it isn't known that they are mentally ill until after the fact. Up until the point they commit these atrocities, they usually blend into society relatively well. There is no indication that they are unable to realize that gun free zones are targets.

 

Additionally, I do not agree that because they are mentally ill (psychos) they are unable to realize that gun free zones are targets. Some of these people plan these attacks out and in great detail. Was Charles Manson mentally ill? of course, but he clearly knew how to carry out his plan in the most efficient manner possible. Their decision making process is skewed, no doubt about it, but they have demonstrated the ability to plan their attacks out to inflict as much damage as possible.

 

As I started off with, I think this may be an issue that we just have to agree to disagree on. But I do not think that by determining these psychos as mentally ill, they are incapable of realizing that their best chance of inflicting maximum damage is to do it in a place they know they wont face any resistance.

 

I have to say, that although I also will be in the "disagree with you" camp, I appreciate your reasoned, well thought out response. Thanks! :thumb:

It can't be just me that's confused on when we can call a shooting "terrorism" and when we can't.

 

I feel like I have reached that point in my BGP life where I can predict exactly how threads will play out. This is why I was asking you so much about mass shootings, who decides it and how.

And all the bombs...

 

 

Yea those too.

I think we are going to just end up disagreeing on this. In my opinion, it is pretty clear that gun free zones are targets. But for the sake of discussion, I would like point out a few specific contentions I have.

 

You say that most shooters are diagnosed with mental illnesses. I agree with that, but are they diagnosed before or after the fact. It is very easy to say that someone who went and shot 20 kids in an elementary school has a mental illness, but prior to that did anyone think he was mentally ill? What about the two recently? My point is that it isn't known that they are mentally ill until after the fact. Up until the point they commit these atrocities, they usually blend into society relatively well. There is no indication that they are unable to realize that gun free zones are targets.

 

Additionally, I do not agree that because they are mentally ill (psychos) they are unable to realize that gun free zones are targets. Some of these people plan these attacks out and in great detail. Was Charles Manson mentally ill? of course, but he clearly knew how to carry out his plan in the most efficient manner possible. Their decision making process is skewed, no doubt about it, but they have demonstrated the ability to plan their attacks out to inflict as much damage as possible.

 

As I started off with, I think this may be an issue that we just have to agree to disagree on. But I do not think that by determining these psychos as mentally ill, they are incapable of realizing that their best chance of inflicting maximum damage is to do it in a place they know they wont face any resistance.

 

I won't say you're wrong, and I can appreciate your response. Again, my thought is it's much more complicated than someone picking out an "easy target". The shooter's connection to the target is rarely mentioned, but there typically is a connection. So the question becomes did they choose the target, which happens to be a gun free zone, for the connection they had to it? Or did they choose the target because it was a gun free zone, and the emotional connection had nothing to do with their choice?? We'll probably never know the real answer.

True to an extent. We usually don't publicize or celebrate foiled terror threats. I could see a lot of reasons as to why we don't though.

 

Agreed, we stop A LOT of events from happening that the public doesn't hear about.

 

And the public doesn't need to know everything, as if the public knows everything, so do the bad guys.

Seems to be mostly Christians. Everyone I see struggling with it is Christian. Which makes sense because the overwhelming majority of people I know are Christian.

 

It very well may be an attack committed by someone following a radicalized view of Islam. My head isn't in the sand to that. But let's not sit here with our heads in the sand and pretend like a lot of people have trouble distinguishing the line between the two.

 

On these very forums you can easily find Christians espousing that Islam is a religion of violence. That these terrorist attacks are advocated by Islam. I could go on.

 

You'll have a hard time finding those same people saying Christianity is a racist religion. That it's a violent religion. Yet, most white supremacist groups base their ideologies on Christianity.

 

Why is there a difference there?

 

Not saying it's right or wrong, it's just relativity.

 

If you were in the Middle East where Islam is the predominant religion you'd probably find the inverse. It's human nature, it's a flaw and it's one WE as a culture should recognize and not embrace.

 

I still don't know enough about what happened yesterday to make a decision or distinction as to whether this was a radical religious attack or a sick guy with a crazy wife, some really weird hobbies and connections to known terrorists. But it's looking a bit like a radicalized Muslim so far.

Edited December 3, 201510 yr by sportsfan41

"Could have" is correct. Trained people with guns couldn't stop the carnage at Virginia Tech, Columbine or even Ft. Hood. Why would we have expected different results yesterday?

 

What are you talking about? How many if any trained people with guns were on there when the shootings at any of those places happened? I would have to look the Fort Hood shooting up again to verify, bit I believe it happened during a graduation or something similar in which most were not armed. However I do believe a female that was a member of the base brought down the gunman.

 

I just don't get your point. How many people at Columbine had guns to protect themselves and the kids? How many students at V Tech were carrying, that's a no no I believe? Fact is, if more good civilians were armed and had the right to bear arms in those type of places, the gunmen probably would not have done as much damage.

California has laws against assault style weapons and high capacity mags.. Didn't work out too well in this case..

 

He didn't read the signs at the front door that said it was a gun free facility either. Unfortunately his co workers did.

Yup. Kinda like not letting everybody know the status of yesterday's pursuit. Some stuff you keep close to the vest.

 

Precisely.

Not saying it's right or wrong, it's just relativity.

 

If you were in the Middle East where Islam is the predominant religion you'd probably find the inverse. It's human nature, it's a flaw and it's one WE as a culture should recognize and not embrace.

 

I still don't know enough about what happened yesterday to make a decision or distinction as to whether this was a radical religious attack or a sick guy with a crazy wife and some really weird hobbies. But it's looking a bit like a radicalized Muslim so far.

Very good points.

:thumb: :thumb:

 

Not saying it's right or wrong, it's just relativity.

 

If you were in the Middle East where Islam is the predominant religion you'd probably find the inverse. It's human nature, it's a flaw and it's one WE as a culture should recognize and not embrace.

 

I still don't know enough about what happened yesterday to make a decision or distinction as to whether this was a radical religious attack or a sick guy with a crazy wife and some really weird hobbies. But it's looking a bit like a radicalized Muslim so far.

 

I had a post typed out to respond, but you said it better than me so I just deleted it :lol2:

The neighbors wanted to alert authorities but "Political Correctness" scared them away. Many more Americans will be sacrificed I'm sure, due to us not wanting to hurt people's feelings.

Very good points.

:thumb: :thumb:

 

Thank you sir.

 

I had a post typed out to respond, but you said it better than me so I just deleted it :lol2:

 

That just made me laugh out loud. You can get the next one.

The neighbors wanted to alert authorities but "Political Correctness" scared them away. Many more Americans will be sacrificed I'm sure, due to us not wanting to hurt people's feelings.

 

As I said earlier, if the neighbor thought that they were level headed and had a legitimate concern, he should have called.

The neighbors wanted to alert authorities but "Political Correctness" scared them away. Many more Americans will be sacrificed I'm sure, due to us not wanting to hurt people's feelings.

 

 

I heard this yesterday originally around 6 pmish. I agree it's concerning and something to be aware of but again it's a talking point.

 

View all of this through a child's eyes. Yes there are bad people, yes you should be cautious and report suspicious stuff. In the same light don't be a judge people you don't know or even try to know. Just because your neighbor is middle eastern and has a garage bigger than yours doesn't mean he's a terrorist.