At least seven killed in shooting at Fort Hood, Tex.

@Phoenix32890,

Why more than other massacres in the US?

They are planned, too.....the Columbine kids planned for months, just as one example.

The Washington snipers.....

Why the distinction?

They're ALL ******* terrifying to me.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette post reported Abdul Hakim Muhammad was “on a mission to 'kill as many people in the Army as he could,' police said” and targeted the “soldiers 'because of what they had done to Muslims in the past.'”

That sounds remarkably similar to the rants of the Columbine shooters. They were disaffected as well. And nuts.

Again: single nut job, who happens to be Muslim. And fools like you will continue to insist that it means something more than he was just nuts.

John Hinkley, Jr. wanted to impress Jodi Foster. Let's censor all images of Jodi, shall we?

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan- As horrific as the act was, I would be much more comfortable knowing that this was a lone gunman who freaked out. The thought of groups all around the country planning similar acts is terrifying.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Woud that interfere with the right to bare arms?

Tank tops for everyone! (And when Dave says "tank top" he really means "turret".)

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I f I have to spell it out to you, you still will not grasp it. Naturally, no one here will admit to lumping all Muslims together, just as racists will not admit to lumping all black persons together. That does not alter the fact.

0 Replies

@Phoenix32890,

Phoenix32890 wrote:

This leads me to believe that the massacre might be a pre-planned act, and not a psychotic snap. And that scares the hell out of me.

People in the middle of psychotic episodes don't just foam at the mouth and yell obscenities.

0 Replies

The more I read about this guy the more I think that him being Muslim has nothing to do with his murder spree. It appears that he was yellow through and through, that he loved the Army but only so long as he could know that he would never deploy. Once he was locked into a deployment that he did not think that he was up to he became unhinged.

what I am waiting to hear is whether he went to mental health, and told them the truth. It is not impossible that he did, but was cleared to deploy anyways. If he did the right thing and tried to get help then I would take the death penalty off of the table.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

What I don't understand for the life of me is that Americans who want guns are protected. Those who don't are at the mercy or those that do. I keep hearing the argument that the gun amendment was put in place so that the people could rise up against the government if they need to. It seems to me, that the United States government isn't the worry at all. It's not like, at least in modern times, they have a history of attacking their own people. It's the people who hold this amendment dearest who seem to be the ones that the rest of the population needs to be protected from.
The gun lovers are the dangerous ones, they keep attacking their fellow citizens.

2 Replies

@Ceili,

So full of emotion, and so void of fact.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I wasn't trying to be factual. It is emotional. People die terrible deaths at the hand of gun owners. This is a sad week. Two gun rampages. That's a fact.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

I wasn't trying to be factual.

Sorry, you made some very factual sounding statements.
I just wanted it to be clear that what you posted are far from facts.

Emotions are normal, human. It has been a sad week. People die terrible deaths at the hands of criminals, however.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

map - Ceili did make one very interesting point I'd like to hear your thoughts on. If the second amendment is in part to protect the citizens from the government, we are left to speculate if this has prevented any governmental abuse over the last 200 years or so. We however do not have to speculate over citizen on citizen violence that is related.

Has the second amendment been worth the cost? What have we gained by having it when you compare our violent crime history with that of countries who have no ownership of guns for citizens?

Speculate for me, if you will, what would have been different if we had never had it to begin with.

T
K
O

2 Replies

the gun control question, as well as the religous angle, are not the primary focus for me. We have seen a good bit of fratricide in Iraq, unhappy soldiers killing their superiors, but here we have an officer shooting up a Stateside base. On scale and on who is doing the killing this is highly unusual as well as disturbing. As General Casey said this is "a kick in the gut" for those of us who are either in the Amry or are associated with the Army.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Has the second amendment been worth the cost? What have we gained by having it when you compare our violent crime history with that of countries who have no ownership of guns for citizens?

Speculate for me, if you will, what would have been different if we had never had it to begin with.

A very challenging question TKO. I do not know enough history to know how critical the 2nd amendment was in protecting our freedoms since our early history or with our previous governments. I know that it was important enough to our founders to include it in the bill of rights. I have to assume that it was believed to be critical at that time. So if it was never adopted or included I suppose our democracy may not have lasted as long as it has, especially in the beginning of our nation. However, I have not studied enough US history to point to any of our past to verify my assumptions.

Regarding our tendancy towards violent crime vs. other nations, I wouldn't even know where to begin to identify the root causes of that aspect of our culture. It would make for an interesting thread.

I wish we didn't live in a country where owning a gun was, at least I feel, required.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Interesting & thoughtful post, maporsche. I, too, would like to see a reasoned discussion about the second amendment & it's relevance to the US at this point in time. Many of the arguments I've seen here in the past seem to revolve around the historical aspects of gun ownership, like the "right to bear arms". Like Ceili, I find some of those pro-gun, pro-2nd amendment arguments rather incomprehensible & bewildering.

I think some of the most unpleasant & heated (& ultimately unproductive) discussions about gun ownership on this board occur when the participants are arguing from "never the twain shall meet" positions. On one hand, many of us (like me) live in countries where guns are associated with anti-social behaviour, criminal activity & horrific killings of innocent people .... something to be abhorred. But on the US side, I've seen many very reasonable posters insist that guns are necessary for their own protection. A "just in case" argument, if you like. And the others, who see guns as an established right & constantly refer to the founding fathers, the 2nd amendment, as though defending sacred ideals. It is like the our 2 sides are living on different planets. We simply cannot comprehend the views of the folk on the other side!

From my side of the divide, I honestly can't fathom or accept the the notion of citizens in 2009 (!) requiring weapons just in case they need to form "citizen militias" against the government! I wonder about the folk who subscribe to arguments like this. They can't be serious, surely? And, finally, I have a great deal of difficulty with those "show & tell" threads where gun enthusiasts post endless photographs of weapons & almost drool over them, as if acquiring the latest whizz bang model is an end in itself.

Anyway, a rational discussion might be an interesting thing to see! Smile

1 Reply

@msolga,

I think the 2nd amendment, at it's very basic, is about the right of the individual to protect themselves and their famiy against those that wish to cause harm, and to protect one's property from those that would try to take from them.

In that sense, I find the 2nd amendment extremely relevant to the US at this point in time. I think it's unrealistic to demand someone delegate their responsibility for their own protection to our police force, a police force that is NOT required to protect the citizens (courts have made this ruling).

I think you're an Aussie, and I do not know what your crime rates are like there, but I'm certain that the USA is much higher. Even our non-gun crime I'm certain is much higher. So I can understand why this may seem strange to you.

Guns in the USA are treated much differently than it sounds like they are where you are from. There are more guns in the USA than there are adults, almost everyone I know owns a gun, and these are not anti-social people, nor are they killers.

I am one of 'the folk' who thinks that citizen militas is a valid reason to own a gun, and went into my thinking (not the only reason, by far) when I purchased my last rifle. I am serious about it. I hope it never, ever, comes down to that, but I am determined not to sit on the sidelines if our government were to start seriously trampling on the rights of our citizens.

Regarding the 'show & tell', I've never quite understood that either, but purchasing a gun isn't much different than many other purchases in the USA. When I buy a new car, I like to show it off. I didn't put much more thought into buying my last gun than I did buying my last television. I decided that I wanted to by one, I did my research, I drove to the dealer and bought it. It's really not out of the norm.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

I am one of 'the folk' who thinks that citizen militas is a valid reason to own a gun, and went into my thinking (not the only reason, by far) when I purchased my last rifle. I am serious about it. I hope it never, ever, comes down to that, but I am determined not to sit on the sidelines if our government were to start seriously trampling on the rights of our citizens.

Could you expand on this, please, maporsche? (Also anyone else who'd like to, of course.) I seriously don't understand your line of thinking. You think a time might come in the 21st century when ordinary citizens US might have fight the government of the country? In what sorts of circumstances do you think this might be the case?

1 Reply

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Quote:

Oh...and if we have someone talking of the wonders of suicide bombing and massacres,
not sure if religious profiling comes into it.

If I had a client talking in such a way,

What kind of a client?
I infer that u are a health care professional.
What is it that u do (if u don't mind revealing that) ?
Psychiatry ?

dlowan wrote:

Quote:

especially if s/he had access to weapons, religion would not come into it.

I would have a duty to report and warn.

EVERYONE has access to weapons; some people have more immediate access than others.

That 's a fact.

David

0 Replies

@Phoenix32890,

Phoenix32890 wrote:

It is well known in mental health circles that people contemplating suicide will often give their things away. In the case of the Fort Hood shooter, it would not have been unreasonable though for him to give away his household goods. You certainly can't use them in a war zone.

One thing though piques my curiosity...................the giving away of his Koran. I cannot imagine a religious person, going into battle, not taking his holy book with him, whether it is the Koran for a Muslim, or a Bible for a Christian.

This leads me to believe that the massacre might be a pre-planned act, and not a psychotic snap. And that scares the hell out of me.

It was pre-planned.

0 Replies

At least seven killed in shooting at Fort Hood, Tex.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know