Reply
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,921
Registered: ‎06-12-2013

@Mominohio wrote:

@151949 wrote:

You can spend your entire ife being paranoid every time you leave the house -- that is certainly ISIS's goal - to make us all fearful. OR you can put it in God's hands and go about living your life normally.  Not having any tendency toward paranoia I will choose to do the latter. I believe the day we are going to die is predetermined by God in the instant we are concieved so I think be it a heart attack or a terrorist bullet - you will die that day and at that time,  and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Also, being a faithful Christian I have no fear of dying.


 

 

The whole point is we are in a new normal. 

 

And situational awareness and security measures are not the same as paranoia.


This is not NEW...what don't you get. You want to dramatize that but not the REALITY.

Valued Contributor
Posts: 773
Registered: ‎05-08-2015

The contradictions abound!  We need to demand stepped-up security everywhere we go!  Use any means we can, including preventing people from entering venues while armed- metal detectors and wanding will catch those armed people.

 

But we need everyone to be armed because perhaps someone, who is a good shot, can stop a would-be perp.

 

Can't have it both ways.  It's a complete contradiction.

You have sacrificed nothing and no one.
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,426
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

@Mominohio wrote:

@Laura14 wrote:

@Maudelynn wrote:

@Melania wrote:

Sighing and moaning about the past does not help us NOW or those that supposedly saw the future and are glad they are dead. I would rather have them here instead of dead to save them from hurt. They would handle it like  we do.

I think most us realize that things have changed for a long time now. 

Many of you choose to overlook that the that person did nothing at the time that was arrestable. Just like one of you toting your weapons...unless you do something that is a crime you are free.

 

Do you want a police state? You want your rights preserved but then *itch and moan about nothing being done to protect us?? It's laughable at the hypocrisy and ultimate selfishness.


What really boggles my mind is the notion that we have to demand stepped up security when attending large gatherings, stepped up security which disallows guns from being carried into an event- in essence, we should be guaranteed a "gun-free zone" in gathering places.

However, you're treading on rights when you demand that the same "gun-free" zone be applicable to the public at large.

 

I don't understand that rationale.


I don't understand it for a different reason.  Since most gun owners are incredibly responsible, I could not help but think how things could have been different if people had been allowed to carry inside.  I get guns and alcohol are not a great mix but when the one and only can't get a clear shot, it would have been nice if there were a few others carrying to at least give everyone another fighting chance.   


 

 

@Laura14

 

This makes too much sense for some posters here to grasp.

 

Each of these shootings has one thing in common, that there were no armed citizens to fight back, most often because of the regulations or laws for the location or venue, and sometimes because they occur in places where people don't normally think having a concealed carry would be needed.

 

We now see differently, that anywhere is now a target, and yet we continue to refuse to try the other side. Allow responsible trained people to have weapons that could conceivably stop or reduce the level of this kind of violence. Because if it did, they'd be proven wrong about their anti gun stance, and that is more important to them than saving lives.


Really? It didn't stop the 4 killed and many others injured in Tel Aviv. We don't need people packing guns. We need stricter laws and a ban on assault rifles.

 

Maybe that is too hard to grasp.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,921
Registered: ‎06-12-2013

@mstyrion 1 wrote:

@ChynnaBlue wrote:

No, it's the same world as it was before this event and the same world it was after the Sandy Hook event, after the Aurora shooting, after the Riverside shootings, after Gabby Giffords was gunned down in Arizona, after Columbine, after the Cleveland Elementary shootings, and after the UT Tower shootings. It will be the same world after the next mass shooting, too.

 

Because when you change nothing, nothing changes.

 


________________________________________________________________

If I could give you one hundred hearts for this post I would.

Very well said!


ITA and it needs to be repeated for the purposely uninformed.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,087
Registered: ‎03-10-2016

So some people want everyone to be armed? 

 

Back to the Wild West, I guess.  Sorry - that's not going to happen, nor should it. 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 16,593
Registered: ‎06-09-2014

@Maudelynn wrote:

The contradictions abound!  We need to demand stepped-up security everywhere we go!  Use any means we can, including preventing people from entering venues while armed- metal detectors and wanding will catch those armed people.

 

But we need everyone to be armed because perhaps someone, who is a good shot, can stop a would-be perp.

 

Can't have it both ways.  It's a complete contradiction.


I think it is an either/or.  If you don't have detectors or security in place, I think it's something to think about to allow licensed holders to carry.   

Honored Contributor
Posts: 11,153
Registered: ‎05-22-2012

Re: It's a different world

[ Edited ]

@Mominohio wrote:

@ChynnaBlue wrote:

@Mominohio wrote:

@Puzzle Piece wrote:

For some things, probalby it's a different world - but then it's supposed to be.

 

I remember my history and well and so should everyone else.  Many Native Americans were slaughtered and killed in the past just to take their land and just to kill them, yet it wasn't considered terrorism.  50 is a small number compared to the many that were killed in the past. 


 

So this is a pay back kind of thing and to be considered acceptable?


That's absolutely not what she's said.

 

You painted a picture about living in a different world where fear and violence are somehow new. That's not the case. Violence isn't new. America has a long and shameful history of violence and a very short  memory.


 

The post minimalized the deaths yesterday because they don't equal the numbers in other events in history. So there must have been some point being made.


I'd argue that your post minimalized the deaths she was talking about because you said this is a different world and implied that the old world, where the deaths she was talking about took place, was a better and safer world. Your post is the one that erased the massacres of the past and only looked at the violence of today. This has become the norm, though - pretending  that the America of the past was so much better than the America of today while forgetting that it wasn't better for everyone, it was mostly only better for the white, the straight, and the men of America.

Valued Contributor
Posts: 773
Registered: ‎05-08-2015

@bri20 wrote:

So some people want everyone to be armed? 

 

Back to the Wild West, I guess.  Sorry - that's not going to happen, nor should it. 


Yet, people are yelling for stepped up security in gathering places, including the use of metal detectors, which would effectively keep anyone with a weapon out.

 

Which is it?  Security?  Or everyone packing everywhere?

You have sacrificed nothing and no one.
Valued Contributor
Posts: 773
Registered: ‎05-08-2015

@Laura14 wrote:

@Maudelynn wrote:

The contradictions abound!  We need to demand stepped-up security everywhere we go!  Use any means we can, including preventing people from entering venues while armed- metal detectors and wanding will catch those armed people.

 

But we need everyone to be armed because perhaps someone, who is a good shot, can stop a would-be perp.

 

Can't have it both ways.  It's a complete contradiction.


I think it is an either/or.  If you don't have detectors or security in place, I think it's something to think about to allow licensed holders to carry.   


Really?  The guy who killed 50 people in Orlando was licensed.  Is that who you think should carry in public places?

You have sacrificed nothing and no one.
Honored Contributor
Posts: 11,153
Registered: ‎05-22-2012

@Laura14 wrote:

@Maudelynn wrote:

The contradictions abound!  We need to demand stepped-up security everywhere we go!  Use any means we can, including preventing people from entering venues while armed- metal detectors and wanding will catch those armed people.

 

But we need everyone to be armed because perhaps someone, who is a good shot, can stop a would-be perp.

 

Can't have it both ways.  It's a complete contradiction.


I think it is an either/or.  If you don't have detectors or security in place, I think it's something to think about to allow licensed holders to carry.   


The Orlando shooter carried legal guns on him and had both a security license and a conceal carry license. So no, this solves nothing.