3 Women Hospitalized After Triple Shooting at NW Dallas Hair Salon

Mina said:
Sure. Take Fort Hood as an example -- lots of guns there, since it's an actual military base. Yet it's had not one but two mass shootings in recent years.

The problem with this idea that armed people will prevent these killings is, as I said, that guns are terrible for defense. You can be LITERALLY one of the most skilled people on the planet with a firearm, and have a loaded one sitting right on your hip, and you can have an armed and well-trained buddy standing at your side ready to help, but if some dude with a gun wants you dead, you'll be dead before you can even get that gun out of its holster. That's how Chris Kyle's story ends, for instance.
Click to expand...

Military bases in the US don't let soldiers walk around carring guns. If they did fewer people would have been killed.

There was a recent shooting in a White Settlement church where the shooter shot and killed one person before and armed church member dropped him dead.

There was another church shooting in Sutherland Springs Texas where the shooter shot several unarmed worshipers. Then a neighbor saw the shooter had a shoot and wounded him in the leg and let chest out and chased him down in a car where the shooter shot himself in the head
 
Last edited:
ExpressLane said:
Military bases in the US don't let soldiers walk around carring guns.
Click to expand...

Those two shooters certainly had them. But, if the base managers did less to discourage people walking around carrying guns, then a lot more people would be killed on military bases, thanks to accidental shootings, lovers spats, workplace conflict, etc. That's the problem with the "defensive use" storyline. Although there may be a once-per-blue-moon instance where an armed person legitimately cut off a mass shooting early, to get that you wind up with gun saturation that results in VASTLY more deaths by guns overall.

It's akin to those instances where someone didn't wear their seatbelt and as a result was thrown free of a vehicle and survived an accident in which the belted passengers end up dying. Look hard and long for those and you can find a few. But, statistically, you're a lot safer with the seat belt, and thus societies with belt laws end up with lower vehicle fatality rates. Similarly, there may be genuine defensive uses of guns, but societies with tighter gun laws end up with much lower gun fatality rates.
 
Mina said:
Those two shooters certainly had them. But, if the base managers did less to discourage people walking around carrying guns, then a lot more people would be killed on military bases, thanks to accidental shootings, lovers spats, workplace conflict, etc. That's the problem with the "defensive use" storyline. Although there may be a once-per-blue-moon instance where an armed person legitimately cut off a mass shooting early, to get that you wind up with gun saturation that results in VASTLY more deaths by guns overall.

It's akin to those instances where someone didn't wear their seatbelt and as a result was thrown free of a vehicle and survived an accident in which the belted passengers end up dying. Look hard and long for those and you can find a few. But, statistically, you're a lot safer with the seat belt, and thus societies with belt laws end up with lower vehicle fatality rates. Similarly, there may be genuine defensive uses of guns, but societies with tighter gun laws end up with much lower gun fatality rates.
Click to expand...
If more soldiers had their side weapons then maybe Major Nidal Malik Hasan, wouldn't have killed so many people.

On November 5, 2009, 13 people are killed and more than 30 others are wounded, nearly all of them unarmed soldiers, when a U.S. Army officer goes on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in central Texas. The deadly assault, carried out by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was the worst mass shooting at a U.S. military installation.
Click to expand...
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/army-major-kills-13-people-in-fort-hood-shooting-spree
 
ExpressLane said:
One had a loaded Glock that he first pointed at Kyles face. One first bludgeoned Kyle on the head and neck with a deadly weapon. One a screamed at Kyle if he caught Kyle alone. Then later the pedophile of 5 young boys had grabbed at the barrel of Kyles gun while attacking Kyle. I think Kyle showed remarkable control to only shoot dangerous rioters that first were threats to his life.
Click to expand...

Yeah!!! He's your hero! Lets just arm a bunch of teenagers and set them loose on the streets of Dallas. That should make all the vigilante loving, BLM haters feel safe :)
 
LurchAddams said:
Blow, me idiot. I was talking about America. Geez you are one lowbrow maggot troll aren't you?
Click to expand...
I think he is talking about America. Hey did you see the Australians arresting people and putting them in detention camps over COVID? The Australians gave up their guns a while back and now the government can run all over them.






.
 
LurchAddams said:
Yeah!!! He's your hero! Lets just arm a bunch of teenagers and set them loose on the streets of Dallas. That should make all the vigilante loving, BLM haters feel safe :)
Click to expand...
As I suspected the Police think this is a targeted attack against the Asian community. They are linking it to at lest two other Asian similar attacks..
 
Mina said:
Sure. Take Fort Hood as an example -- lots of guns there, since it's an actual military base. Yet it's had not one but two mass shootings in recent years.
Click to expand...
and now we know that you are clueless about life on a military base..........they aren't any different than other government controlled buildings......that only law enforcement are allowed to carry guns.

Mina said:
The problem with this idea that armed people will prevent these killings is, as I said, that guns are terrible for defense. You can be LITERALLY one of the most skilled people on the planet with a firearm, and have a loaded one sitting right on your hip, and you can have an armed and well-trained buddy standing at your side ready to help, but if some dude with a gun wants you dead, you'll be dead before you can even get that gun out of its holster. That's how Chris Kyle's story ends, for instance.
Click to expand...
so between having no chance and some chance, you cowardly accept the no chance, hoping that the bad guy will give you mercy or something?
 
Mina said:
Those two shooters certainly had them. But, if the base managers did less to discourage people walking around carrying guns, then a lot more people would be killed on military bases, thanks to accidental shootings, lovers spats, workplace conflict, etc. That's the problem with the "defensive use" storyline. Although there may be a once-per-blue-moon instance where an armed person legitimately cut off a mass shooting early, to get that you wind up with gun saturation that results in VASTLY more deaths by guns overall.

It's akin to those instances where someone didn't wear their seatbelt and as a result was thrown free of a vehicle and survived an accident in which the belted passengers end up dying. Look hard and long for those and you can find a few. But, statistically, you're a lot safer with the seat belt, and thus societies with belt laws end up with lower vehicle fatality rates. Similarly, there may be genuine defensive uses of guns, but societies with tighter gun laws end up with much lower gun fatality rates.
Click to expand...

you've swallowed too much gun controller koolaid.
 
ExpressLane said:
I think he is talking about America. Hey did you see the Australians arresting people and putting them in detention camps over COVID? The Australians gave up their guns a while back and now the government can run all over them.

.
Click to expand...

Hey did you hear trump asked several people in the Department of Defense to shoot missiles into Mexico to fight the cartels - and then he said, "No one would know it was us"?

Dude you have people like trump, MTG, Gym Jordan, Kevin spineless McCarthy Louie Gomer, Ted Cancun Cruz - c'mon get away from that dark side.
 
ExpressLane said:
If more soldiers had their side weapons then maybe Major Nidal Malik Hasan, wouldn't have killed so many people.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Or possibly even more would have died thanks to stray bullets from would-be rescuers. It's impossible to know. What we can say with relative certainty, though, is that if more soldiers on military bases were walking around with loaded weapons all day, a whole lot more people would be dying in ones or twos, year in and year out, by way of more accidental shootings and more tense situations that come to shots instead of blows.

We have a pretty convincing pattern of evidence supporting that just by way of comparing shooting deaths in lower-gun-saturation countries with the US. Yes, in lower-saturation countries like Japan, the chance of some armed civilian stopping a mass shooting earlier is lower. But it turns out that infinitesimal life savings is vastly outweighed, statistically, by all the avoided shootings by way of not having those guns in the mix in all sorts of far more common scenarios.

Again, it's roughly analogous to seatbelts, in that there are genuinely some scenarios where people survive crashes thanks to being unbelted, when they would have died if strapped in. But, statistically, that turns out to be far, far less common than the scenarios where the seatbelts save lives, and so when seatbelt laws go into effect traffic fatality rates drop significantly.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and now we know that you are clueless about life on a military base
Click to expand...

I'm not. I've worked on a military base.

so between having no chance and some chance, you cowardly accept the no chance, hoping that the bad guy will give you mercy or something?
Click to expand...

Because I'm NOT a coward, I keep my wits about me and look at the statistics rationally, and realize that lower gun saturation correlates strongly with lower firearms deaths. By comparison, cowards like you shit yourself at the thought of violence and cling irrationally to a gun in hopes it will keep you safe. It's a bit like the irrationally frightened people who are too scared to get on a plane, and so they drive long distances, instead, even though statistically it amounts to a much larger risk. People like you who lack the character to keep a clear head in the face of danger actually, ironically, put yourselves in greater danger in your attempt to hide from it.
 
Mina said:
I'm not. I've worked on a military base.
Click to expand...
yet you seem to think that everybody carries on a military base????

Mina said:
Because I'm NOT a coward, I keep my wits about me and look at the statistics rationally, and realize that lower gun saturation correlates strongly with lower firearms deaths. By comparison, cowards like you shit yourself at the thought of violence and cling irrationally to a gun in hopes it will keep you safe. It's a bit like the irrationally frightened people who are too scared to get on a plane, and so they drive long distances, instead, even though statistically it amounts to a much larger risk. People like you who lack the character to keep a clear head in the face of danger actually, ironically, put yourselves in greater danger in your attempt to hide from it.
Click to expand...
I believe you are a coward because you are projecting your inadequacies on others to represent your 'beliefs'
 
SmarterthanYou said:
yet you seem to think that everybody carries on a military base????
Click to expand...

I do not, in fact, seem to believe that. That's just a weird straw man you've decided to erect so you have something you feel competent to attack.

I believe you are a coward because you are projecting your inadequacies on others to represent your 'beliefs'
Click to expand...

If a person walked around with a life preserver all the time because his fear of drowning was that pathological, we'd recognize the crippling fear he lives with. It's similar for those who walk around with guns all the time, for fear of violent crime. Those of us who aren't crippled by cowardice that way can only pity such poor souls.
 
Mina said:
I do not, in fact, seem to believe that. That's just a weird straw man you've decided to erect so you have something you feel competent to attack.
Click to expand...
did you not make the argument that more guns does not equal less crime because of the army base shooting, which was full of guns?

Mina said:
If a person walked around with a life preserver all the time because his fear of drowning was that pathological, we'd recognize the crippling fear he lives with. It's similar for those who walk around with guns all the time, for fear of violent crime. Those of us who aren't crippled by cowardice that way can only pity such poor souls.
Click to expand...
you are now confusing preparedness for cowardice. is it paranoia to have a fire extinguisher in your home or car for fear of fires?????

with todays violent crime rate, it would be IGNORANCE, not courage, to walk around without a means of protecting yourself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top