Reports: 4 shot, hostages taken in Binghamton, NY

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

I didn't. This would be a straw man.

number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, now that's a different story. At some point we all have to take charge of our lives.

He fired 89 shots. he had to reload. This is a pause. Why did no one take that opportunity to try and save themselves?

It is tragic.





It is disturbing. It is more disturbing though that 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 may not have put up a fight.




If you notice, I am not being political at all, I have actually tried to take the gun as a defense tool out of the equation to highlight what I see as a major problem with our society today.

Click to expand...

Okay, I admit it. I was fooled into believing this was a genuine account. However, it has now become clear this is a parody. It has to be. The posts in this thread alone show the goal here is to show what it would look like if "Percy" from The Green Mile were active on a message board. It is that kind of character, and only that kind, that would put the victims on trial.

stevenb said:

I'm sorry, I'm pretty good at reloading my firearm(s) under duress.. but I've trained for a very long time on that..

your average joe, not so much.

The fact of the matter is there were probably HUNDREDS of people in the area... that could have stopped this person at any given time while he was reloading. They all chose not to help, so they're in my opinion just as much at fault as the person pulling the trigger.

Even with a gun, 5-6 people can disable 1 person... all it takes is people with some ****ing guts and respect for their fellow man.

Click to expand...

Which one first? (The sarcastic one) Has the DA in NY been called yet so all those accessories to murder can be arrested? If they're just as much at fault then they should be put on trial.

Iam also guessing most in this gun crowd making these comments have never faltered in believing the Bush admin about 9E. So I am wondering...how did it go when the victim's families were contacted to gripe about how wimply the passengers and pilots were to let some hobos with box cutters hijack planes? Did they receive the criticisms well and immediately sign up for the Sheep Survival Course?

This stuff is too freaking bizarre.

SkyCore said:

Which one first? (The sarcastic one) Has the DA in NY been called yet so all those accessories to murder can be arrested? If they're just as much at fault then they should be put on trial.

Iam also guessing most in this gun crowd making these comments have never faltered in believing the Bush admin about 9E. So I am wondering...how did it go when the victim's families were contacted to gripe about how wimply the passengers and pilots were to let some hobos with box cutters hijack planes? Did they receive the criticisms well and immediately sign up for the Sheep Survival Course?

This stuff is too freaking bizarre.

Click to expand...

I have a feeling most of these Rambos have never actually been in a situation where everyone in the room was being methodically killed. It makes them feel like he-men to lecture how easy it would have been for the victims to overpower the shooter.

WillRockwell said:

Referring to innocent victims as "sheep", insisting violence would decrease if everyone carried guns in spite of evidence to the contrary,

Click to expand...

What evidence to the contrary? What's the evidence in this case? 100% of victims were unarmed. Same with V-Tech, same with the Luby's Cafeteria incident, same with Columbine High School....

What is known is that predators really enjoy themselves when the prey can't bite back.

Market economics indicates that the more risky a venture, the fewer people will try it.

Put those together, and it becomes apparent that there will be fewer shooting rampages when the shooters begin to realize that the chances are good that the prey species has learned how to bite back, ie, shoot. Also needed is the elimination of the ignorant awe the gun-grabbing elitists feel towards guns, an awe that is shared by the ignorant children who wind up doing these rampages.

Back in the old days, before diseased liberals started succeeding in their push to disarm America for an easy takeover, people had guns. Big deal. Little Joe Jr wasn't going to take Daddy's gun to school and impress his classmates with it....their dads probably had bigger guns. So, when everyone had easy access to firearms...diseased liberal shooting rampages didn't happen.

That's a damn hard historical fact for you people to get past, now isn't it?

WillRockwell said:

Gun owners cannot join the discussion about keeping weapons out of the hands of deranged people because to do so would enter the "slippery slope" of gun control, which must end with federal confiscation agents at the door.

Quite simply, these people cannot discuss the issue. So it will be decided without them.

Click to expand...

Frankly, you people won't accept the solutions needed to do the job effectively.

Assuming the deranged person is under professional care, if his shrink feels he's a threat to others, he needs to be locked up. Or the shrink can share some portion of the blame for what happens.

Alternatively, potentially violent patients, including those reliably on their meds, need to be tattooed inconspicuously on their foreheads, with one of those international "NO" circles, so legitimate gun dealers will be aware of them. Using transparent but UV flourescent dyes would do the trick.

Alternately, we remove their fingers. They can have substitutes back when their mental health is restored.

What can't be done is to violate the basic human rights of the rest of society because some people can't grow up. There's a specific and practical reason the Second Amendment guarantees individual gun ownership. Read Federalist 28.

WillRockwell said:

I have a feeling most of these Rambos have never actually been in a situation where everyone in the room was being methodically killed. It makes them feel like he-men to lecture how easy it would have been for the victims to overpower the shooter.

Click to expand...

Or....maybe we have been in situations where fighting is the correct answer, and passed the quiz.

Is someone is willing to stand around and wait his turn to get shot, what does he deserve, really?

Certainly not pity.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Or....maybe we have been in situations where fighting is the correct answer, and passed the quiz.

Is someone is willing to stand around and wait his turn to get shot, what does he deserve, really?

Certainly not pity.

Click to expand...

I've got the scars to prove that I wasn't willing to stand around and let others get hurt.

They like projecting their weakness upon people, it's okay.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Or....maybe we have been in situations where fighting is the correct answer, and passed the quiz.

Is someone is willing to stand around and wait his turn to get shot, what does he deserve, really?

Certainly not pity.

Click to expand...

I'm a Combat Vet so I've earned my opinion on this issue. Or is experience suddenly not going to matter?

Christianity was founded upon one person's choice to not use violence as a means of response. Keep in mind, thousands of his people were being murdered on a regular basis. Crucifixions were done for fun. By the gun lover's standards this person would be called a wimp *****-ass punk not worth the air he was breathing. I've never seen anyone have the stones to call Jesus any of those names. His disciples (pre-Easter) were all practically begging him for a military revolt against the Roman murderers and this is why they (the original 12, minus Judas) ran in fear when Jesus got Crucified. They failed to understanding the wisdom of his teachings until the message of the Resurrection was brought to them. This is why they did not take up arms against their oppressors.

But hey, I guess it's always possible a group of gun-huggers possess more wisdom than Jesus. (Personally, I don't think there's a sno-cone-up-Satan's-butt chance in Hell they have an ounce of Christ's wisdom.)

stevenb said:

I've got the scars to prove that I wasn't willing to stand around and let others get hurt.

They like projecting their weakness upon people, it's okay.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how many scars one has. Accusing others of projecting weakness out of disagreement is a projection in and of itself.

CaptainCourtesy said:

And part of my rejection of Grossman's article is that his claim that "sheep" fear "sheepdogs" is fallacious. Few "sheep" fear "sheepdogs". This is spin created by the "sheepdogs". If the sheep fear anything it is the wolves that pretend to be sheepdogs, and the teeth the sheepdogs have. As far as most sheepdogs go, Grossman is completely mistaken.

Click to expand...

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

:lol:


"The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence"


"The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed."



So you "reject" him, then paraphrase him in agreement. I am a little confused here captain. Which is it?

Click to expand...

Let's review, Reverend, and this is where you are posting dishonestly, either on purpose or because you did not read my post carefully enough.

When I say "If the sheep fear anything it is the wolves that pretend to be sheepdogs", I am not saying, "The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog." I am saying that the sheep do not like wolves that pretend to be sheepdogs. This is completely different than what Grossman says. You always have trouble with argument that are not black or white. And this is not only no exception, but further presents how you see "sheep". People who you and Grossman refer to as "sheep" do not dislike sheepdogs, not at all. Most like and respect them. However, there are wolves that pretend to be sheepdogs. These are those that "sheep" do not like. And this is the contradiction that you and Grossman make and do not get. "Sheep" are smart enough to know the difference.

The other quote fits right in line with this way of thinking; "The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed." But the sheep is suspicious, this is what you and Grossman do not get, and why I get on you about the "meek" comment. You are presenting a victim mentality. The "sheepdog" may not hurt the sheep, but the wolf pretending to be the sheep, would. You ever heard of the "wolf in sheep's clothing" fable? This is a take of on this.

I hope this helps you to understand the error in your assumption and the fact that I, in no way contradicted myself or agreed with Grossman. His premise is overly simplistic and presents a "blaming the victim" mentality, which I do not agree with.

FlyOnTheWall said:

I read it and found it to be a rather humdrum piece of work with little thought other than the author's acknowledgment that he believes he is a protector because he carries a gun. I don't believe the guy because I believe that most people who carry a gun do it more for self protection than the protection of others. He immediately states that there is nothing wrong with being a sheep, then criticizes and belittles sheep throughout the rest of the piece. Basically, the author claims that he has a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens which makes him a protector (sheepdog). What happens when he loses his love for his fellow citizen? He becomes a wolf. There is a thin line between sheepdog and wolf, and that is the heart of the gun debate. People can snap at any time.

Click to expand...

In bold. You nailed it and saw precisely what I saw. Grossman contradicted himself throughout. His position is overly simplistic and one of "blame the victim" which is why I reject it.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

What does the fact they are foreigners have to do with anything? furthermore no, I don't expect the 1st "foreigner" to fight back, I expect the 2nd one to, then the 3rd, then the 4th, etc....

to get up to 14 dead without fighting back? What value do we place on our lives these days. This is a tragedy, but deeper into this story is the fact that we have become all too dependant on others for our very lives.

I highlighted several seemingly people of moderate age who could have acted.... Imagine if the mindset was to fight instead of "hide" and "Cower"? gun or no gun, we may have had less dead.

See the youtube video I posted for the mindset I am talking about. The gun is irrellevant in deciding what to do when you find yourself in a gun fight, if you have one or not, you have the rest of your life to win a gunfight.

Click to expand...

Basic human psychology, Reverend. When confronted with a life threatening situation, one will react in one of three ways: Fight, Flight, or Freeze. How one reacts is based on two factors: 1) the person's personality, and 2) the choice that will lead to the best chance of one's survival. This decision is not made with what one would call conscious thought, it is made instantaneously, based on an inherent assessment. Survival is the key component, here, but survival of the individual, not the group. When, unarmed, and presented with someone carrying a gun, the most likely response would be to freeze. Fleeing, in an enclosed place, which is where these people were, would draw attention to them, making them more likely targets, decreasing their potential for survival. Attempting to fight, would not only draw attention to the individual, but put them in a more aggressive situation, causing the gunman to fight back, decreasing their potential for survival. In this particular situation, freezing gave the greatest chance. though small as it was. If the situation were more even, or if there were an easier way out, another of these three "F's" might have been chosen. But these were not available, therefore, human psychology dictated how these people reacted.

stevenb said:

That's the victim's mentality... "not me, why me, thank god it wasn't me.".

**** people who wouldn't take every opportunity they could to help others in such a situation, they deserve their death... when it comes to them.. that's called karma.

I'd rather die on my feet trying, than be gunned down like some pathetic ass ***** cowardly begging for my life.

Click to expand...

No, it's basic human psychology, which I explained in my previous post. You are just presenting an erroneous "blame the victim" mentality, and you do not know what you are talking about.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

I didn't. This would be a straw man.

number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, now that's a different story. At some point we all have to take charge of our lives.

He fired 89 shots. he had to reload. This is a pause. Why did no one take that opportunity to try and save themselves?

Click to expand...

Human psychology, Reverend, in regards to survival. Read my other post for clarification to understand why you are wrong.

stevenb said:

Not a tough guy, but I refuse to cower in the corner like a ***** and become a statistic like others.

Assumptions without facts? if he had any other devices / deterrants with him.. MAYBE your incapacitate argument would hold.. but, no articles mention that... and they'd be all over that ****.

The plain and simple matter of fact is the people who he was shooting were cowards, and they obviously didn't do anything to stop this person from ending their lives... hell, they probably didn't even try.

Click to expand...

The plain and simple truth is that you do not understand the situation and how suvival instincts based on situations affect people.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

So lets review.


3 or 4 explaination of my statement

a you tube about a lady with said "sheepdog" mindset

And a link to an article outlining the mentality I am refering to.



How much more clarification do you need? If you were being "honest" in your attempts to bait me, then I must question your intelligence. Since I know you are intelligent, I am only left with you willfully choosing to ignore my point to bait me, and that my friend is a dishonest tactic.

Click to expand...

Reverend, please show me where you took the post that I am questioning and directly clarified it. You have not. All you have done is continue to bolster the position that I am confronting you on. You are presenting the "blame the victim" mentality. This has been pointed out to you more than once, by more than one. I am aware that this may not be a popular position, but if it is, please admit it rather than hiding. If it is not your position, and everything you have posted since I have confronted you, only bolsters the fact that you seem to believe the victim is to blame, and those who do not carry guns are meek or as Grossman said, in denial, please, as I have asked repeatedly, clarify your position.

If you cannot, or will not, just say so.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Basic human psychology, Reverend. When confronted with a life threatening situation, one will react in one of three ways: Fight, Flight, or Freeze. How one reacts is based on two factors: 1) the person's personality, and 2) the choice that will lead to the best chance of one's survival. This decision is not made with what one would call conscious thought, it is made instantaneously, based on an inherent assessment. Survival is the key component, here, but survival of the individual, not the group. When, unarmed, and presented with someone carrying a gun, the most likely response would be to freeze. Fleeing, in an enclosed place, which is where these people were, would draw attention to them, making them more likely targets, decreasing their potential for survival. Attempting to fight, would not only draw attention to the individual, but put them in a more aggressive situation, causing the gunman to fight back, decreasing their potential for survival. In this particular situation, freezing gave the greatest chance. though small as it was. If the situation were more even, or if there were an easier way out, another of these three "F's" might have been chosen. But these were not available, therefore, human psychology dictated how these people reacted.

Click to expand...

Basic human psychology


Fight or flight. absolutely, the point is, when there was no flight available, these who i am sure had some able bodied people around them froze. maybe it is psychology. so what. Does this mean we can't overcome it? perhaps I am not as defeatist as you.

Tell me do people ever fight back? Do you think there are ANY socilogical conditioning here?


freezing gave the greatest chance


WHAT?!?!?!?... :lol: freezing gave the wolf this day easy targets. this is a gunfight, you have the rest of your life to win a gunfight

A man is there to kill everyone he sees, do you really believe the best solution for survival is to "hold still"? :shock::rofl

CaptainCourtesy said:

Let's review, Reverend, and this is where you are posting dishonestly, either on purpose or because you did not read my post carefully enough.

Click to expand...

This is a lie. you initially claimed my position was that those who chose not to carry a gun are meek. I explained how you were wrong numerous times numerous ways. this is where you started posting.

In this instance, you made statements where you made similar statements re the article you dismissed in your perpetration of that lie you told about my position and ran with.

When I say "If the sheep fear anything it is the wolves that pretend to be sheepdogs", I am not saying, "The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog." I am saying that the sheep do not like wolves that pretend to be sheepdogs. This is completely different than what Grossman says. You always have trouble with argument that are not black or white. And this is not only no exception, but further presents how you see "sheep". People who you and Grossman refer to as "sheep" do not dislike sheepdogs, not at all. Most like and respect them. However, there are wolves that pretend to be sheepdogs. These are those that "sheep" do not like. And this is the contradiction that you and Grossman make and do not get. "Sheep" are smart enough to know the difference.

Click to expand...

:lol: you know, you could have said that.... but lets review.

The other quote fits right in line with this way of thinking; "The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed." But the sheep is suspicious, this is what you and Grossman do not get, and why I get on you about the "meek" comment. You are presenting a victim mentality. The "sheepdog" may not hurt the sheep, but the wolf pretending to be the sheep, would. You ever heard of the "wolf in sheep's clothing" fable? This is a take of on this.

I hope this helps you to understand the error in your assumption and the fact that I, in no way contradicted myself or agreed with Grossman. His premise is overly simplistic and presents a "blaming the victim" mentality, which I do not agree with.

Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:

And part of my rejection of Grossman's article is that his claim that "sheep" fear "sheepdogs" is fallacious. Few "sheep" fear "sheepdogs". This is spin created by the "sheepdogs". If the sheep fear anything it is the wolves that pretend to be sheepdogs, and the teeth the sheepdogs have. As far as most sheepdogs go, Grossman is completely mistaken.

Click to expand...

let me ask you, by your sentence structure, you are stating people fear the "sheepdogs" teeth. not the "wolves in sheeps clothing" if you made an error in grammar let me know. I unlike you will accept that you meant something more than what and how you wrote or something else entirelly, I wont bait you dishonestly with this for the next 4 pages. thanks

CaptainCourtesy said:

Human psychology, Reverend, in regards to survival. Read my other post for clarification to understand why you are wrong.

Click to expand...

Right, while I am wrong fighting for my life if we ever find ourselves together, you just "hold still"..... :lol:


There is no survival in your "psychology" argument, there is only slaughter.

WillRockwell said:

I have a feeling most of these Rambos have never actually been in a situation where everyone in the room was being methodically killed. It makes them feel like he-men to lecture how easy it would have been for the victims to overpower the shooter.

Click to expand...

Did you curtsy at the end of this? :roll:

A true case of immigration rage!

How sad!

The system is so backlogged I can see why it could be frustrating. To kill over such a thing is just sad.

I hope the hostages come out unharmed.

WillRockwell said:

I have a feeling most of these Rambos have never actually been in a situation where everyone in the room was being methodically killed. It makes them feel like he-men to lecture how easy it would have been for the victims to overpower the shooter.

Click to expand...

Ad-homs are no substitute for a sound position...
:rofl

CaptainCourtesy said:

The plain and simple truth is that you do not understand the situation and how suvival instincts based on situations affect people.

Click to expand...

I've already had my trial by fire, not in a massacre such as the one we're talking about.. but in a similar situation.

I know how I will act, I care not how others act.

I will do what it takes to survive, or help others survive.

I'm not a flee'er or a freeze'er.

My experience was the primary reason for my getting, and carrying a ccw firearm at all times... irregardless of where I am.

I would like to add, the Captain spent several posts dishonestly claiming my point was that people who choose not to carry guns are meek. Specifically this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057981162-post61.html

"Anyone who chooses to not have a gun is being or has been taught to be meek."


Even after correcting his error he insisted on fighting me on this point I did not make. Not only have I posted my position clearly several times, I linked an article, a you tube, and other information, that most others got except for skycore, will rockwell, and Captian"Courtesy". He then tried to morph his statement into something else.

This and only this is the issue regarding my pointing out the Captain's blatant dishonesty in this discussion with me. If he wants to continue to obfuscate in order to weasel out of his baiting behavior so be it. I care not. But when he follows through with his threats he made to me in PM regarding calling ME dishonest in other threads (has happened already) because I laughed at his demand for a public apology to him. Lets remember when the **** hits the fan, and everyone is all pissed off. THIS is were the Captain started it.


I will tell him here now publicly. You sir, will get what you give. Please act accordingly.


The discussion and a good description of my true feelings on this topic, to which I was attacked dishonestly over, can be continued at the link below. Lets endeavor to keep this one sane.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/Death-Penalty/46491-guns-sheepdogs-nutcases-victims.html

WillRockwell said:

Problem is, your sense of responsibility does not extend to help us figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of mass murderers, so instead of saving us from dangerous criminals you are enabling and encouraging them.

Click to expand...

Okay, cutting to the chase, about keeping guns out of the hands of mass murderers; the short version is, you can't. Not entirely, and probably not even the majority.

1. If you banned guns entirely, criminals would still get them. They'd be smuggled in like drugs are now...if there was even any need, since there are over 200 million guns in private hands in the USA right now, and you'd never get rid of all of them. AK47's and many other firearms can be made in any decent machine shop. Ammo can be manufactured in secret without much more trouble. There will ALWAYS be guns for those who want them and are willing to break the law to get them, and BY DEFINITION those willing to commit mass murder are lawbreakers.
2. No law ever stopped a person who was willing to die to accomplish his goal. JFK's assassination in the middle of Secret Service protection is one example. A major gun control act followed this assassination, prohibiting certain kinds of sales and transfers. This did not stop President Reagan from being shot a couple decades later, in the midst of Secret Service guards.
3. No other scheme will work either. Registration does not work; serial numbers can be removed, so could RFID tags etc...what one man can make, another can find a way around.
4. Those cities with the most draconian anti-gun laws are also those cities with the highest rates of violent crime...DC, Chicago, etc.
5. Nutcase mass-murder groups like Aum Shin Ryo, in Japan, used nerve gas instead of guns.

The argument quoted is bogus because the fundamental thesis of it, that more gun control will mean less murder, is flat out wrong.

Unless you can find a way to outlaw the will to murder, you will never have a utopian land where these things never happen.

G.

stevenb said:

I've already had my trial by fire, not in a massacre such as the one we're talking about.. but in a similar situation.

I know how I will act, I care not how others act.

I will do what it takes to survive, or help others survive.

I'm not a flee'er or a freeze'er.

My experience was the primary reason for my getting, and carrying a ccw firearm at all times... irregardless of where I am.

Click to expand...

Sounds like an admission of being paralyzed by fear for life, from one event.