Reports: 4 shot, hostages taken in Binghamton, NY

SkyCore · Apr 11, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I find those particular tools to be more use when I discover my wife has taken my truck for an oil change instead of doing it herself. Last time that happened, I had to drill the plug out and re-tap the hole. A .38 would have made a fair hole very quickly and then I would only have had to weld on a new boss.

Next time that happens, I'm going to save a lot of work...

You people really get hung up on the fact that the definition of the word "tool" includes firearms, don't you?

Tools are material objects used to exert greater force than the bare hands can apply themselves. Occasionally the little lady getting dragged off by a possible rapist is very happy to have a little .22 "tool" in her pocket or purse. Yes, I'm talking about a specific incident. She pointed her tool over her shoulder and applied enough force to not only make him let go, but he was never going to grab anyone again.

Another man was backing his car out of his driveway when a thug ripped open his door and tried to pull him out. That man's tool allowed him to remain in the driver's seat...all the way. He told the thug, who wasn't mortally wounded, that if he tried to get up that he'd use his tool again.

Then there was the nice case I read about in good old gun grabbin' Australia, where a little girl, nineteen or so, was attacked by a man with a knife trying to drag her out of her car. She didn't have a tool, so she suffered permanent scarring and the criminal didn't even get hurt.

Tools are handy things...when they're ready to hand. One cannot morally deny law abiding citizens the use of tools that you happen to be afraid of because the merely gives the people who are going to be violent a bigger edge.

It's not the law that makes a 90-lb woman the equal to a 250-lb would-be rapist, it's the one pound of steel and gunpowder and lead in her hands.

Oh cry us a river with pulling heart strings long enough to make a bungy cord to Mars. Please. The world is a crappy place where violence happens every single day. We already know that so cease the petty tear jerking.

If people want to refer to guns as "tools" I have no problem with that as long as the term is used honestly. The problem is the dishonesty in trying to compare them to freaking car keys and screwdrivers. The only good thing about such comparisons is they show what pathetic lengths some have to go to in order to make themselves feel better about drowning in fear. When a position can't be honestly defended it's time to change something.

SkyCore · Apr 11, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. By definition, your hand cannot be a tool.

It has tool-like aspects, being comprised of identifiable levers and all that, but a natural human hand, of meat and bone, is not a tool...

A weapon is a class of tools.

Get done with it already.

A tool is an instrument used to accomplish a goal so yes, a hand can certainly be a tool. Love it how gun lovers like to "tool" words to fit their agenda but apply dictionary draconian laws to everyone else's use of the word.

SkyCore · Apr 11, 2009

celticlord said:
The gun control nazis have yet to understand the simple truth in the saying "God created men. Sam Colt made them equal."

Lol...gun control nazis? What a joke. Just another example of dishonesty.

SkyCore · Apr 11, 2009

Goshin said:
Established fact: virtually every state that has enacted shall-issue (easy to get) concealed-carry permit laws has experienced a drop in violent crime. All citizens of the state benefit from this, as criminals do not know who is armed and who isn't.

Established fact: the Second Amendment recognized the natural right to keep and bear arms as an individual right.

Established fact: guns in the hands of private citizens are used to prevent crime far more often than any guns (lawfully or unlawfully obtained) are used to commit crime. The most conservative, low-ball figures quoted in gov't studies are 60,000 to 90,000 defensive uses per year; some pro-gun orgs claim evidence for over a million defensive uses per year. In around 99% of these incidents, no shots are fired; the criminal flees or surrenders when confronted by an armed citizen.

Established fact: the violent crime rate among lawful permit holders is so low as to be virtually zero.

Established fact: Cities with draconian anti-gun laws also have extremely high violent crime rates. Criminals like disarmed victims.

G.

Established fact: opinions are not facts.

Goshin · Apr 11, 2009

In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)

The Lott-Mustard Report

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

(Source: "More Guns, Less Violent Crime", Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column).

Whether or not one believes a portion of the drop in violent crime is due to "shall-issue" legislation, Lott's study provides strong evidence that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not increase gun crime or fatal gun accident rates.

Historian Benedict LaRosa noted the same effect in D.C.: "In 1976, Washington, D.C., instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. The murder rate since that time has risen 134 percent (77.8 per 100,000 population) while the overall rate for the country has declined 2 percent."

Samuel Adams, US Founder:

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of ... the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

Thomas Jefferson, US Founder:

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

The Hart Poll in 1981 found 644,000 defensive uses with handguns per
year. The Mauser Poll in 1990 found 691,000 defensive uses per year.
The Field Poll in California in 1978 found 1.2 million handgun defensive
uses per year. The Time/CNN Poll in 1989 found over 908,000 defensive
uses per year. Gary Kleck estimated the yearly defensive use of firearms
by civilians to be at about 1,000,000 per year. A more recent study by
Gary Kleck put the yearly total at approximately 2,400,000 defensive
uses. Yet the total deaths by firearm in the USA only runs about 25,000
to 30,000 per year, and that includes accidents, murders, suicides and
self defense homicides. That means a gun is 30-40 times more likely
to defend against an assault or other crime than kill anybody. As
accidental firearm's related deaths is about 1400 per year, including
hunting accidents, the defensive use verses accidental death ratio is
about 700-800 to 1.

Gary Kleck completed another survey in 1995. This one had a sample size
of 5000 and confirmed his former estimate of 2,400,000 defensive uses
per year in the USA. [Kleck, Gary and Gertz, M, Armed resistance to
crime: the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology. 86:143-186. (1995)]

Facts are facts, and calling them opinions does not change them.

G.

FlyOnTheWall · Apr 11, 2009

Goshin said:
Very well then. Perhaps you would like to clarify your position, and we can discuss it.
G.

:lol:

Why should I? This isn't about my stance on guns or gun control. It is apparent that you have not understood what my real issue in the thread has been. It is not difficult to understand if you actually read what I am saying. Instead you have incorrectly assumed that I was trying to disarm you under the color of the law, then incorrectly assumed that I dont want restrictions on second amendment rights. You have me at both ends of the spectrum without realizing that there is something in between.
My argument in this thread is that it was wrong to assume that the 13 murdered victims were meek sheep who deserved to die because they were unarmed and refused to fight back. Up until now, we dont know what went on in the classroom so it is wrong to assume, and especially wrong to blame the victims.

Goshin said:
If you do not wish to go armed, that is your choice and I would not try to force you. Please give me the same courtesy and don't try to disarm me under the color of law.

G.

Goshin said:
I am pleased that you do not wish to restrict second amendment rights.

G.

Goshin · Apr 11, 2009

FlyOnTheWall said:
He twisted nothing. I wanted to make the same comment when I read your post. Apparently something tragic happened in your life that made you believe you were not safe unless you were carrying a gun. Some peeps use religion as a crutch, you use a gun.

I have been in the world for 48 years without carrying a gun, and I have not been attacked by any criminal. Guess I have been lucky.

In most cases, carrying 24/7 means a person is paranoid that evil is out to get him. That person probably has some emotional disorder which was brought on by a traumatic event.

You indicate that your only intrest in the thread was in denying that the victims were to blame for not resisting the shooter. While I think it is unfortunate that no one was prepared and able to stop the nutcase, I agree that blaming the victims is inappropriate. However, you comments went beyond this simple issue into larger issues about carrying guns, and disparaging remarks about armed citizens. I thought you might wish to present your position in a clear and unequivocal manner and debate the larger issue. If you do not wish to, then don't.

G.

FlyOnTheWall · Apr 11, 2009

Goshin said:
You indicate that your only intrest in the thread was in denying that the victims were to blame for not resisting the shooter.
G.

Incorrect. I said

My argument in this thread

I did not say it was my only interest. We have all strayed a bit from the topic at one point, and I am no exception. However, to start talking about my stance on gun control would take us further off topic because I have not used my stance as a point in the thread.

Goshin · Apr 11, 2009

Thread drift hardly seems to be a capital offense here on DP, as long as there is some vague relation to the original topic. However, as you wish.

G.

SkyCore · Apr 11, 2009

Goshin said:
Facts are facts, and calling them opinions does not change them.

G.

Afraid to post links?

Goshin · Apr 11, 2009

SkyCore said:
Afraid to post links?

Must you always be insulting? You could have simply asked for links.

I'll be glad to post some later, after I get some IRL things done.

G.

SkyCore · Apr 11, 2009

Goshin said:
You indicate that your only intrest in the thread was in denying that the victims were to blame for not resisting the shooter. While I think it is unfortunate that no one was prepared and able to stop the nutcase, I agree that blaming the victims is inappropriate. However, you comments went beyond this simple issue into larger issues about carrying guns, and disparaging remarks about armed citizens. I thought you might wish to present your position in a clear and unequivocal manner and debate the larger issue. If you do not wish to, then don't.

G.

Typical blindedness and intellectual dishonesty. He didn't make a statement about "armed citizens." He made a side step commentary on ONE PERSON stating he carries wherever he is "...irregardless." But you want to change his post and dishonestly claim he was making a comment about "All" armed Citizens? This is an example of why some gun supporters are not respected. Why should anyone respect a group with a pattern of being more dishonest than used car sales lots?

SkyCore · Apr 11, 2009

Goshin said:
Must you always be insulting? You could have simply asked for links.

I'll be glad to post some later, after I get some IRL things done.

G.

Looked to me like that laundry list came from a pro-gun site and the post was simply a copy/paste plagiarism job. How in the world could you have had time to look all of that up but suddenly "irl things" prevent the posting of a couple of links? Also, stop whining. Asking if someone is afraid to post links isn't meant to be insulting. It's meant to point the obvious practice of plagiarism. If you can't handle the heat then stay out of the kitchen.

Goshin · Apr 11, 2009

SkyCore said:
Typical blindedness and intellectual dishonesty. He didn't make a statement about "armed citizens." He made a side step commentary on ONE PERSON stating he carries wherever he is "...irregardless." But you want to change his post and dishonestly claim he was making a comment about "All" armed Citizens? This is an example of why some gun supporters are not respected. Why should anyone respect a group with a pattern of being more dishonest than used car sales lots?

You have no room to talk about intellectual dishonesty. Several of your statements above are erroneous. No surprise, since you've demonstrated similar behaviors elsewhere, along with your trademark of insulting all who disagree with you.

Frankly, most of your posts are not worth bothering to read, let alone answer. You seem to have more intrest in being unpleasant and snide than in honest debate.

Goshin · Apr 11, 2009

SkyCore said:
Looked to me like that laundry list came from a pro-gun site and the post was simply a copy/paste plagiarism job. How in the world could you have had time to look all of that up but suddenly "irl things" prevent the posting of a couple of links? Also, stop whining. Asking if someone is afraid to post links isn't meant to be insulting. It's meant to point the obvious practice of plagiarism. If you can't handle the heat then stay out of the kitchen.

More intellectual dishonesty. Plagarism would be if I quoted others and claimed those thoughts were my own original work. I put them in QUOTES, so even someone as dim as you would realize they were QUOTES.

Again, you demonstrate that you are more intrested in trying to be a pain in the ass than in honest debate. You aren't worth bothering with.

Now if you'll pardon me, I need to take off the trash, which is much more productive than trying to have a conversation with you.

G.

SkyCore · Apr 11, 2009

Hey Goshin, surprised you had the audacity to return to the thread at all. Did you think if you waited long enough what was said earlier would be forgotten? Rev. Hell. makes these statements:

(Posted by RH)

"Here 14 people let themselves get shot, not only was no one armed, but words like "cower" and "hid" are the words used here. it dismays me to know end that we teach ourselves to be meek when the wolf comes for the slaughter....

Like the VT tech thing, we have neutered the people and prepared them for the slaughter......"

Then when he accuses others of being dishonest I quoted what he said and proved how he described any and all victims as "meek" then you come along, IGNORE his posts, quote one of mine and whine about:

(Posted by Goshin)
"Who said carrying a gun, and being willing to use it in defense of innocent life, means you can't be meek? Being meek isn't about being a victim of any scumbag who wants to take what you have, be it your wallet, your spouse or your life. Being meek is about humility, kindness, selflessness, not returning insult for insult, not escalating situations though pointless displays of anger. Packing a gun doesn't mean you can't do all that. In point of fact I'd daresay the average lawful permit holder is probably more polite and "meek" than those who don't carry, in my experience.

In any case SkyCore, I haven't seen any evidence here that you qualify as "meek". You've done too much namecalling and flung too many insults to qualify. An intresting point I've run across is how many self-labeled "pacifists" run their mouth freely, insult others freely, engage in verbal and emotional abuse of others...while at the same time screaming angrily "I'm against violence!!" I think, instead, such persons wish to control the level and type of violence they engage in, but "meek" isn't the word for them."

So not only do you IGNORE the fact he described the victims as meek sheep being neutered for the slaughter, just so you can pontificate, but you also falsely accuse me of claiming to be meek. What a freaking joke. Even after Rev. Hell. points out he was the one that brought up "meek" you brush aside your own ****-up. You've joined the ranks of those who's posts aren't worthy enough to care about because even when busted on being dishonest and/or making a mistake you try to blame others.

SkyCore · Apr 11, 2009

Goshin said:
More intellectual dishonesty. Plagarism would be if I quoted others and claimed those thoughts were my own original work. I put them in QUOTES, so even someone as dim as you would realize they were QUOTES.

Again, you demonstrate that you are more intrested in trying to be a pain in the ass than in honest debate. You aren't worth bothering with.

Now if you'll pardon me, I need to take off the trash, which is much more productive than trying to have a conversation with you.

G.

Lol. If you C+P a list like that but fail to link the source that put all of the quotes together THAT IS PLAGIARISM. But pull up your pantyhose, take out the gargbage, and whine some more about how insulting iam. I'm going to the store, are you almost out of Kleenex? For all the bitching you do about others being insulting it seems you fail to realize iam simply calling out the BS. As proven above, you claim iam not meek even though I have never claimed to be meek. That's an example of the BS iam calling out and if you can't handle it, then don't respond.

Goshin · Apr 11, 2009

SkyCore said:
Lol. If you C+P a list like that but fail to link the source that put all of the quotes together THAT IS PLAGIARISM. But pull up your pantyhose, take out the gargbage, and whine some more about how insulting iam. I'm going to the store, are you almost out of Kleenex? For all the bitching you do about others being insulting it seems you fail to realize iam simply calling out the BS. As proven above, you claim iam not meek even though I have never claimed to be meek. That's an example of the BS iam calling out and if you can't handle it, then don't respond.

Sigh. I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but you really are a PITA.

There is no "one source that put all the quotes together". They came from several sources. I didn't save the links, so looking them all back up again is going to be a PITA and I have other things to do right now. I'll do it later, if I bother with it at all, since you'll just twist things to suit your purposes like always.

Skycore, the problem I have with you is, spin it any way you want, you're a troll. Instead of honest debate, you look for opportunities to be an ***hole. Instead of addressing the content of the information I posted, you choose to beyotch about not having links. Did you look up any of the studies quoted, and see for yourself? If there's two ways to say something, one of them polite and the other annoying, you invariably choose to be annoying. It's like trying to debate a smart-mouth Middle School kid.

I forgot the first rule of the Internet: Don't Feed The Trolls.

I don't normally use the Ignore function, since I prefer to debate honestly with those who disagree with me; but since that is impossible with a bitterly hateful, passive-aggressive troll, and you're not worth wasting time and blood pressure over...

You're Ignored. Bye now. Have a nice life.

G.

__________________________

Jerry's sig line:

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat
As a smaller and smaller portion of young men have ever experienced being punched in the mouth, they appear to be growing mouthier and mouthier.

SkyCore · Apr 11, 2009

Goshin said:
Sigh. I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but you really are a PITA.

There is no "one source that put all the quotes together". They came from several sources. I didn't save the links, so looking them all back up again is going to be a PITA and I have other things to do right now. I'll do it later, if I bother with it at all, since you'll just twist things to suit your purposes like always.

Skycore, the problem I have with you is, spin it any way you want, you're a troll. Instead of honest debate, you look for opportunities to be an ***hole. Instead of addressing the content of the information I posted, you choose to beyotch about not having links. Did you look up any of the studies quoted, and see for yourself? If there's two ways to say something, one of them polite and the other annoying, you invariably choose to be annoying. It's like trying to debate a smart-mouth Middle School kid.

I forgot the first rule of the Internet: Don't Feed The Trolls.

I don't normally use the Ignore function, since I prefer to debate honestly with those who disagree with me; but since that is impossible with a bitterly hateful, passive-aggressive troll, and you're not worth wasting time and blood pressure over...

You're Ignored. Bye now. Have a nice life.

G.

Geez. Guess I shouldve picked up a case of Kleenex for you. The self righteous pontificating is funny as hell in the face of proving you put words in others' mouths then make criticisms on things they haven't said.

CaptainCourtesy · Apr 12, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
This completley muddles your point. obfuscation? What is your point here? I already suggested this.

And I'm agreeing with you, but with some small modifications and clarifications.

So again, I ask, are these peoples victims of thier instinct? and there is no hope of society to break this? or do you see no problem with people "freezing"

I am not assessing the "freeze" scenario. You are. Are you of the opinion that the "fight" response is the only appropriate reaction? If so, I reject that. All responses are instinctual and have a value based on the situation.

how about you stick to the psychology side, and I will concentrate on the tactics side.

Sure it may draw more attention, but standing there made these people more deader.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. You are looking at this situation as if those that were killed knew what was going to happen. They had no idea how many bullets the gunman had. With the lack of this information, drawing attention to oneself would not be prudent.

it is shocking to see people actually advocating capitulation and freezing.

Since I am not advocating anything, and not what you are saying above, you are either speaking to someone else, or not addressing my point.

The best? really? I pity you. you have "given up" and the wolf is no where is sight....

"instinctivly" the best thing to do, is to win this gunfight by all means neccessary...

please tell me, how was it the "best" for lets say 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 to sit there and wait to be shot? they just saw what 1-9 got... how was this the "best of a no-win situation".......

This mindset is so pitiful.....

You are missing the entire point, Reverend. Completely. The best situation was decided instinctively, based on personality and situation. You do not know the personalities involved. And based on the situation, freezing may have been the best response. You seem to be stating that this is a learned behavior. It is not. As you said so well, you stick to tactics, I'll stick to psychology.

CaptainCourtesy · Apr 12, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So wait, if thier "instinct" is to freeze, but they trained someone not to freeze, then how does them no longer freezing not change the instinct?

:lol:

Did you actually read my post before making the above comment? If you had, you wouldn't have. Here, let me help you. I'll repost it and highlight the important parts so, this time, perhaps, you will not miss them:

CaptainCourtesy said:
This does not change the instinct. It modifies the situation which changes the response based on this modification. Even you said, "Conditioning someone to control their instinctive reactions" alters the situation, but does not change the instinct. The instinct is still in tact, but a different response occurs because, the training has altered the situation.

Actually, I could have highlighted the entire post, but let's start you off with these comments. The instinct DOES NOT CHANGE. Because training can alter the conditions/situation that one is in, one may react differently, fighting the instinct.

So, now that I have shown that your interpretation of my post was completely inaccurate, you want to try again?

CaptainCourtesy · Apr 12, 2009

SkyCore said:
Looked to me like that laundry list came from a pro-gun site and the post was simply a copy/paste plagiarism job. How in the world could you have had time to look all of that up but suddenly "irl things" prevent the posting of a couple of links? Also, stop whining. Asking if someone is afraid to post links isn't meant to be insulting. It's meant to point the obvious practice of plagiarism. If you can't handle the heat then stay out of the kitchen.

Moderator's Warning:

Your posts are getting increasingly personally attacking. Simmer down, now.

SkyCore · Apr 12, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
Moderator's Warning:

Your posts are getting increasingly personally attacking. Simmer down, now.

Funny how this post wasn't quoted:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057988070-post268.html

Don't threaten me mid-thread while not openly addressing other posts that are far worse. No, iam not afraid of being banned because if I get banned from a site that practices moderation in this style then it would be a compliment more than a punishment.

ReverendHellh0und · Apr 12, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
I am not assessing the "freeze" scenario. You are. Are you of the opinion that the "fight" response is the only appropriate reaction? If so, I reject that. All responses are instinctual and have a value based on the situation.

Are you suggesting that "freeze" is the only appropriate action? I mean if you read what I actually posted you wouldn't ask such a question of me. there is more excuse making for the "freeze" instinct you made than there is that "fight" is the only appropriate action. I have been clear that fight is not the only reaction. attempt to egress.

if there is no chance to escape, however, than for numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16, and 17, Freezing here was NOT the appropriate action. do you disagree?

Perhaps, but perhaps not. You are looking at this situation as if those that were killed knew what was going to happen. They had no idea how many bullets the gunman had. With the lack of this information, drawing attention to oneself would not be prudent.

This is the response of the sheep. no offense. but which of the 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16, and 17 should have figured out the wolf came for the slaughter? Again you stick to psychology, I will stick to tactics.

the number of bullets is irrelevant. your "wait and see" attitude is not instinct. it is a simple fear of doing what must be done. you are not alone though Captain, you apparently would have been 18, "Waiting and seeing" based on what your "instincts" tell you, that "freezing" is the best thing in a massacre.

This is both nature, and nurture you are arguing here.

Since I am not advocating anything, and not what you are saying above, you are either speaking to someone else, or not addressing my point.

Ahh it's a learned thing I picked up in this thread.

You are missing the entire point, Reverend. Completely. The best situation was decided instinctively, based on personality and situation. You do not know the personalities involved. And based on the situation, freezing may have been the best response. You seem to be stating that this is a learned behavior. It is not. As you said so well, you stick to tactics, I'll stick to psychology.

freezing made 14 people more dead and 3 more wounded. Please go ask thier families if "freezing" was the best response.

We have as you say, 3 responses, but that is not entirely true. there is fight or flight. Freezing is an "instinct" of indecision. indecision can be trained out of most anyone. you doubt me? go take a two week kick boxing class, or a bjj class and free roll/spar with someone. why don't soldiers, police, etc freeze in a tough situation?

There is nature, and there is nurture. We have nurtured that warrior mentality out of our children. and not that does not mean always fight, but have the presence to mind to decide, fight or flight. "freezing" is indecision of the two and never the "best" response.

ReverendHellh0und · Apr 12, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
Did you actually read my post before making the above comment? If you had, you wouldn't have. Here, let me help you. I'll repost it and highlight the important parts so, this time, perhaps, you will not miss them:

Actually, I could have highlighted the entire post, but let's start you off with these comments. The instinct DOES NOT CHANGE. Because training can alter the conditions/situation that one is in, one may react differently, fighting the instinct.

So, now that I have shown that your interpretation of my post was completely inaccurate, you want to try again?

I read your post, I want you to clarify. You seem to suggest freezing and getting shot was the "best response" instinctivly. I reject that absurd notion as it left 14 dead and 3 wounded.

again, if I used to freeze, and now I don't because of hard training. how have i not changed my instinct?

if i flinched when someone threw a punch at me, and now i block/parry/counter it now without thought, what happened to that "Freeze" instinct, and what do you call my auto reaction of a counter to said punch?

is that a new instinct? what happened to the "freezing" instinct?

Reports: 4 shot, hostages taken in Binghamton, NY

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Burned Out Ex-Mod

New member

Burned Out Ex-Mod

New member

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Active member

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Active member

Active member

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Active member

Active member

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Active member

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Active member

I don't respect you.

I don't respect you.