A case of two attacks

First case:
2 ISIS gunman start shooting.
The result is 2 dead ISIS gunman and a security guard that needs to go to the hospital.

ISIS claims responsibility for Texas shooting

Second case:
2 ISIS gunman start shooting:
The result is a massacre of 14 people.

San Bernardino shooters 'supporters' of ISIS, terror group says

What was the difference?
I know what I think it was...one in Texas...one in California.

It seems that having the equipment you need to shut down an attacker makes all the difference in the world.

Careful now pointing that fact out may land you on the no fly list ... But I agree with you whole heartily.



CoBaZ

That may be but I think it was because one was a high security, high risk target for the shooters, and one was a no risk, no security Medical Center.

The truth is that on both extreme sides of the issue they are using the same argumentative logic...they just can't see it.

The far right says they're Muslim so we should take it out on the Muslims and crack down on immigrants.
The far left says they used guns so we should take it out on the guns & crack down on gun laws.

It's so obvious - both solutions equal more regulation but people just don't seem to understand how bad we're being played.

It's not the Muslims fault & it's not the guns fault.
It's way more complicated than that but simple people like simple solutions.

a reply to: Kukri

That may be but I think it was because one was a high security, high risk target for the shooters, and one was a no risk, no security Medical Center.

Actually, indirectly that is exactly the point...
An armed target is harder to attack and entails more risk.

So why would they suggest disarming the citizens?
How is that going to make people safer against an attacker?

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: Kukri

That may be but I think it was because one was a high security, high risk target for the shooters, and one was a no risk, no security Medical Center.

Actually, indirectly that is exactly the point...
An armed target is harder to attack and entails more risk.

So why would they suggest disarming the citizens?
How is that going to make people safer against an attacker?

Who's suggesting disarming citizens?
An unarmed populace won't be safer unless the government can actually find a way to disarm terrorists.

a reply to: Kukri

An unarmed populace won't be safer unless the government can actually find a way to disarm terrorists.

Very true...
It's unfortunate that there has not yet been a government able to do that successfully.

The dean of that one college agrees...as he's encouraging students to carry guns...I don't see that ending well though. The solution definitely isn't rampant gun ownership and everybody with guns. Both extremes are bad.

That sort of sums up the problem as a whole. Extreme-anything ends badly. Moderation in life is the key, but humans aren't very good at it.


There are solutions but everyone wants to "win" 100%. That will never work.

How about first we bring to justice those in government who authorized Fast and Furious? That would be a big step in leading me to believe that they were serious about gun laws. How about they begin enforcing the vast volumes of gun control laws currently on the books?
A friend of mine who owns a gun shop told me yesterday that over the past 6 months he's had half a dozen attempts by people who can't own firearms to make purchases. He reported every case as he is required to do. He's disgusted by the fact that no investigations of those incidents is being pursued. According to him, those people can be charged with a felony for attempting to obtain a firearm but the Feds don't have the slightest interest in enforcing the law.
There is no way that bad guys are going to be disarmed. Guns aren't that hard to build. If I can do it, most anyone can because I don't really have any special mechanical abilities---just a good teacher.

a reply to: coldkidc

The difference is in one case the shooters had ties directly to Daesh (were in contact). The other had no ties to Daesh.

Anyone have any ideas on why the PP shooter was not labeled a Christian Extremist or Terrorist?

a reply to: coldkidc

Wow, so much truth in one, simple OP.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: coldkidc

The difference is in one case the shooters had ties directly to Daesh (were in contact). The other had no ties to Daesh.

Anyone have any ideas on why the PP shooter was not labeled a Christian Extremist or Terrorist?

There hasn't been crap on him in the last 5 days.

I assume nothing "juicy" or they would have had a press release or "confidential leak" to get the word out. Especially now.

The "shooters" made the list:
www.thereligionofpeace.com...

a reply to: infolurker

That really only emphasizes my point.

a reply to: Kali74

Anyone have any ideas on why the PP shooter was not labeled a Christian Extremist or Terrorist?

He was.

Miss this thread ?

Robert Dear is a Christian Terrorist

Of course Dear neither had the gear, or rounds, and aid the SB attackers did.

a reply to: neo96

According to Obama, to Law, to the media?

Nope.

a reply to: coldkidc

Oooo.... this is going to leave a BAD taste in many mouths.

I'm with you in spirit, but the Security guard in Texas was not armed
and it was the police that shot the gunman.
And obviously both Texas and California LEO's carry firearms.