? about Ft Hood

Spinout007 wrote:

triumph7 wrote: I heard a report that said this was in a "gun free" area of the base. If so, it makes a good case not only for concealed carry but removal of the gun ban. No one would walk in and start shooting if they knew it would be instant suicide.

Look at Miami's crime rate from 10-20 years ago, and look at it for the last few years. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but iirc something like 1 in 7 or 8 people in Miami has a concealed carry permit, that combined with the stand your ground laws, has made Florida a very unforgiving place for violent crime. Not saying it doesn't happen, but just as often you hear of someone blowing away the guy who tried to rape/rob/go on a rampage etc. Handgun bans need to go, they only give the bad guys the guns. I know it would be expensive but mandating a training class quarterly for concealed carry permit holders would make a ton of sense, you could even pass some of the cost on to the permit holders, say 50$ for a 1 day class, split it between classroom and range, law enforcement has to requalify at least once a year if not more often, and they are EXPECTED to put in range time on their own. I know alot of handgun owners that purchase a weapon, take it to the range, and then quit going. GUN CONTROL IS HITTING WHAT YOU AIM AT! ok rant over

Didn't sound like a rant to me. I don't have a reference in front of me but I have heard of studies that prove violent crime drops when concealed carry laws are in place. If guns were permitted in this area of Ft.Hood, and Virginia Tech as well, the death toll would probably have been no more than one or two... and the shooter wouldn't be on a ventilator right now.

Here in Ohio, we have to requalify every 5 years but most CCW holders shoot more often (when you can find ammo!).

OK, this guy winds up in Leavenworth. Psycho, can't fry his ass cause he's just a little nuts. What will his life expectancy be in there? 15 minutes?

What's the description - definition of Terrorism?

Does this fit?

Dan

triumph7 wrote: I heard a report that said this was in a "gun free" area of the base. If so, it makes a good case not only for concealed carry but removal of the gun ban. No one would walk in and start shooting if they knew it would be instant suicide.

With few exceptions, military bases are giant "Gun Free Zones". Unless you're a LEO with business there, an MP, or training, firearms are NOT allowed.

therex wrote:

triumph7 wrote: I heard a report that said this was in a "gun free" area of the base. If so, it makes a good case not only for concealed carry but removal of the gun ban. No one would walk in and start shooting if they knew it would be instant suicide.

With few exceptions, military bases are giant "Gun Free Zones". Unless you're a LEO with business there, an MP, or training, firearms are NOT allowed.

I just think it makes a case that they should be allowed.

914Driver wrote: What's the description - definition of Terrorism? Does this fit? Dan

Muslim murders 13 American soldiers on American soil. Yes, normal people would file this under "terrorist." Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to use the word "terrorist" anymore, because that might hurt someone's feelings; you know, the kind of someones who run around murdering American soldiers.

I'm pretty sure this is defined as a "Non-overseas contigency operation."

I saw a video on terrorism at work. They are white and black males with glasses and flannel shirts. This isn't it.

So if you wear flannel shirts and glasses Wally won't let you on the bus!

terrorism could be defined as a group organized form of contingency or recognition. One man working by himself is not considered terrorism, it's just violence. At least that's how I think the media and government see it.

What's interested is when a gang in L.A .shoots up a party, it isn't considered terrorism, it's considered gang violence.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

United Nations Security Council describes terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act"

So, some of the key elements and concepts are coercion or intimidation, ideological goals, and the targeting of non-combatants.

So, Pheller, I agree- though the intimidation and targeting of non-combatants were elements, there appears to be no known ideological intent, this was therefore a lone act of violence. If it becomes apparent that he was trained by a particular ideological group, and that the intent of their training him was to promote coercion or intimidation, it would certainly fit the definition of terrorism, regardless of how many shooters there were.

Gang violence is generally about power and control, and rarely includes ideological goals or the targeting of "non-combatants" (since from the gang's perspective, other gang members are combatants), though it could easily cross the line if the primary targets became civilians for the purpose of coercion.

Can we call it "Moslem Initiated Murder" (MIM)?

Dr. Hess wrote: Can we call it "Moslem Initiated Murder" (MIM)?

ugh...

how about just murder.

Dr. Hess wrote: Can we call it "Moslem Initiated Murder" (MIM)?

Do you mean a Muslim?

We dint even know for sure if this was motivated by anything like that, or this was just a wacko killing people. I heard it mentioned that if he were a "sleeper cell" or someone had trained him, they would have come forward by now, as these idiots love to accept responsability for these acts.

Joey

joey48442 wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: Can we call it "Moslem Initiated Murder" (MIM)?

Do you mean a Muslim? We dint even know for sure if this was motivated by anything like that, or this was just a wacko killing people. I heard it mentioned that if he were a "sleeper cell" or someone had trained him, they would have come forward by now, as these idiots love to accept responsability for these acts. Joey

Muslim/Moslem are essentially interchangeable. However, it appears that the former is the preferred choice of the devout as the latter is considered "offensive".

From all the reports there is a consistent theme in that Hasan was at odds between his religious beliefs and serving his country. He was being deployed to Afghanistan, a war he considered as one against his religion, not a war against terrorists dedicated to eliminating the Great Satan.

Others may disagree, but I'll side with Hess on this one - Moslem it is.

spitfirebill wrote: The guy has survived. He is going to be so pissed when he wakes up and doesn't have his 72 virgins around him.

Achmed get to heavan, Thomas Jefferson walks up and slaps him in the face, "You sir are a Blackheart".

Next Robert E. Lee steps up and punches him in the gut, then Patrick Henry jumps in and really starts kicking his ass.

He didn't get 72 Virgins, he got 72 Virginians, and they're PISSED.

oldsaw wrote: Muslim/Moslem are essentially interchangeable. However, it appears that the former is the preferred choice of the devout as the latter is considered "offensive".

I seem to remember Muhammad Ali saying something like "Muslim sounds like a piece of cloth. I'm a Moslem".

However it seems there are accepted variations in spelling, i.e., Mohammed/Muhammad...