ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Your answers aren't working either. "SHOOT HIM!" would get a lot of people killed and the death toll might have been much higher had people without gas masks and bulletproof vests been shooting at the other guy.The answer the anti-gun side is giving us doesn't work, obviously.
Hey, dude if you want to get shot for no reason, go for it, but the majority of people who get out of these kinds of situations don't try to confront the armed guy with the bulletproof vest who has nothing to lose. Hey, maybe they'll even call you a "hero."
And, by the way, I know you probably think you know exactly how you'd react in this situation, but you don't. Oftentimes, people don't have enough time to think about such noble topics as "will I let my fellow citizens die." It's fight or flight, that's it.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Surprise. Why do I even bother responding to your posts?All these people got shot for no reason.
Not for everybody. Maybe almost everybody thought only of themselves, but you wait--you will be hearing about a few who tried to help others.
It was sarcasm dude, chill out.
The problem with that approach is that many who may take it don't know how to use weapons. It is more likely there would be more victims at their hands because of their shoot-before-thinking attitude than there would be of the killer being taken down.
That doesn't indicate how long he planned this. Purchasing guns isn't a criminal act, nor does it prove intent to committ a criminal act.
Sarcasm or not, it was still disgusting.
He had more body armor than a swat guy and a house full of ammo and booby traps.. This took a lot of planning.
It's nice to sit outside looking in and say "I'd be that hero. I'd have protected them" but, until you are in the situation, it's a simple hypothetical and your brain could react completely differently.
He had more body armor than a swat guy and a house full of ammo and booby traps.. This took a lot of planning.
How do we know they weren't carrying concealed? I haven't seen anything credible where anyone said "Golly, I had a bead on the guy but I just didn't have a weapon." The dude was wearing body armor. That makes making the shot far more difficult.
The idea that concealed carry would have saved lives in this situation is based on wishful thinking rather than evidence. Ft Hood was at place where access to firearms shouldn't be much of a problem, but there were similar numbers of casualties there. Even when shots were exchanged in that situation, by trained military, the problem wasn't solved right away.
I think that's the usual protocol too actually. Not sure, but iirc there is a way to dismiss charges for "temporary insanity", I hope this doesn't get dismissed.I believe that, in cases like this, if he is judged "insane", then he is usually given meds until he understands what he did, and is then put on trial.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Surprise. Why do I even bother responding to your posts?
I don't disagree with that, but the date he purchased the weapons doesn't prove anything.
Oh Jesus Christ, we're talking about instincts (aka the fight or flight response). Until you figure that out, keep your condescending "maybe almost everybody thought of themselves" nonsense out of my face. Is it really that simple for people? Do you people really think that situations like this are a matter of the selfish and the noble. Jesus Christ, use some common sense and do some research.Not for everybody. Maybe almost everybody thought only of themselves, but you wait--you will be hearing about a few who tried to help others.
This guy's intention was to have as few survivors as possible. People didn't shoot back, tried to escape, and got shot.Or the 3rd option, which ensured the majority of those people got out of the theater: panic, take cover, don't shoot back, don't get shot, leave and survive.
That's true. But it's just possible that some have been in dire circumstances, have made choices, and are pretty sure how they would react.
Having served at Fort Hood I know for a fact soldiers do not have easy access to weapon.The only soldiers who would have access to weapons with ammo are MPs and those on armed guard duty or those doing training with live rounds at a training range.
I'm just curious as to his motives...Seems like a pretty smart guy. Did well in school, was in grad school. I wonder what the trigger was, for him to all of a sudden start trying to plan this crap out? And why? Did his girlfriend leave him for another dude? Is he gay, and his boyfriend leave him for another dude? Not trying to joke about it, but it just seems silly for me to try to rationalize this...I mean, there is pretty much nothing that can happen to you that is so bad to have you plan this, right? Did the kid discover nihilism, or something?
If you're dead anyway might as well try to get others out, it's not being a hero, it's just that other options suck much worse.The former point is why I can't take much of this, "people should have shot him...I would have shot him...shooting him would have helped...blah, blah, etc.." seriously. It's just as ridiculous and completely speculation based as the "gun laws would have stopped this" nonsense is. Most people have never been shot at and certainly not in this type of scenario. As far as I'm concerned, it's just as likely or more that the "heroes" would have been shot dead on the spot by the man in the bullet proof vest and the gas mask than they would have stopped him or slowed him down.
Both sides of gun issue on this just want to believe that they have the answer. They don't.
It's still pure speculation. You can't know how the neurons in your brain will fire, you can't know if you'll have a massive release of epinephrine, how your Thymus, Amygdala, or Hypothalamus will react.
I think that's the usual protocol too actually. Not sure, but iirc there is a way to dismiss charges for "temporary insanity", I hope this doesn't get dismissed.
The majority of people didn't shoot back, tried to escape and escaped. Anybody saying that shooting him would have had a positive effect is basing their argument on pure speculation and wishful thinking that their position on guns would have been the answer the here. Moreover, if his intention was to have a few survivors as possible, then pointing a gun at him wouldn't change that intention and would likely just make you a bigger target.This guy's intention was to have as few survivors as possible. People didn't shoot back, tried to escape, and got shot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?