Multiple People Shot in Manhattan: Sources

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

Nobody is gonna shoot him through the windshield as he barrels down the sidewalk.

I believe a couple of well-placed shots to the tires would at least slow things down.

There's more targets than just the head... as the NYPD showed us today.

TheRedneck

Easier said than done on a moving vehicle. NYPD would probably tell you that too.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

They don't care about dying in public, private, or anywhere else. But they DO love their relatives and close friends. I started after another terrorist attack describing how to dissuade the wann-be's...

So you think killing their families would keep them from doing their thing, don't you think that would cause them to ramp up their attacks considering they have nothing left to lose?

Works for Israelis i could tell you stories how israelis will bring in their entire family for questioning. Many dont want to put their family through that.

originally posted by: face23785
Terrorist left note pledging allegiance to ISIS

Edit: But he still doesn't have a membership number and he never went to the academy, so some people may want to still pretend this wasn't an ISIS attack.

The Islamic State has collapsed militarily to offensives by the Syrian and Iraqi Armies. Once they are defeated they'll go underground and switch their efforts to radicalisation in the West and Russia and focus on terror attacks like these.

This is gonna get worse before it gets better.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: DerBeobachter

News reports say entered country in 2010 as refugee.........

And Sheppard Smith (Fox News) carefully laid out tonight's Halloween parade route for all wanna-be terrorists. He's a real idiot sometimes.

You do know that parade routes in big cities are always made public, right? That's how people know where to set up their chairs.

Any wanna-be terrorist can find out very easily.

But like me, NJ/NY/CT terrorist wanna-be's probably didn't know there was a big Halloween parade in Manhattan tonight. As we saw today, it only takes ONE to kill many innocents.

So are you saying we should not make parade routes public?

Then what is the point of having a parade?

I'm not sure of your logic here, or lack thereof.

The LOGIC is: DO NOT nationally broadcast the route for a big parade that's scheduled to occur 4 hours after, and 1 mile from a terrorist attack.

Thats just stupid its like having an NFL game and not tell erryone when and which stadium. What wouldbe the point of having a parade if you dont tell the public and they dont show up??? Think before you speak.

Sorry you are unable to comprehend my posts properly. No hard feelings.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

They don't care about dying in public, private, or anywhere else. But they DO love their relatives and close friends. I started after another terrorist attack describing how to dissuade the wann-be's...

So you think killing their families would keep them from doing their thing, don't you think that would cause them to ramp up their attacks considering they have nothing left to lose?

You don't START by killing the families. You START by punishing those closest to the terrorist in a way that would make the next terrorist think twice.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

They don't care about dying in public, private, or anywhere else. But they DO love their relatives and close friends. I started after another terrorist attack describing how to dissuade the wann-be's...

So you think killing their families would keep them from doing their thing, don't you think that would cause them to ramp up their attacks considering they have nothing left to lose?

You don't START by killing the families. You START by punishing those closest to the terrorist in a way that would make the next terrorist think twice.

That will only encourage them.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

They don't care about dying in public, private, or anywhere else. But they DO love their relatives and close friends. I started after another terrorist attack describing how to dissuade the wann-be's...

So you think killing their families would keep them from doing their thing, don't you think that would cause them to ramp up their attacks considering they have nothing left to lose?

You don't START by killing the families. You START by punishing those closest to the terrorist in a way that would make the next terrorist think twice.

While I understand your point, that's a serious assault on civil liberty if they're American citizens. If they had anything to do with the attacks, even if they just knew and didn't warn anyone, they should absolutely be prosecuted. But punishing people because they were related to someone who commits a horrific act, we can't do that here. No thanks.

a reply to: TheRedneck


So true TR, and given how easily common defensive calibers penetrate car body (admittedly not the engine, but windshield/tires are no problem) it certainly wouldn't have hurt

I too am thankful a police officer was in a position to stop him very quickly

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

They don't care about dying in public, private, or anywhere else. But they DO love their relatives and close friends. I started after another terrorist attack describing how to dissuade the wann-be's...

So you think killing their families would keep them from doing their thing, don't you think that would cause them to ramp up their attacks considering they have nothing left to lose?

You don't START by killing the families. You START by punishing those closest to the terrorist in a way that would make the next terrorist think twice.

It still would not work, you would see more people rising up to the challenge, more home grown terrorism would rise up against the government, your idea would turn the USA into a war zone.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ok. How do we approach the vetting process if we learn these sorts of people are radicalized here at home in the US?

I guess it depends where he was being radicalized.

The mosques have to be the first place to start and the jihadi sites on the internet.

So if vetting people doesn't work, we step on people's first amendment rights?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: TheRedneck


So true TR, and given how easily common defensive calibers penetrate car body (admittedly not the engine, but windshield/tires are no problem) it certainly wouldn't have hurt

I too am thankful a police officer was in a position to stop him very quickly

Even if you go to the range every week, how often do you practice shooting at a moving target? If you're in front or behind the vehicle, unless it's jacked and has huge tires, you're not gonna have a shot. If you're on the side of it, you lead it a little too much or too little and you're hitting the people on the other side of the car.

Ask cops who have had to shoot out tires on cars in chases, They hit the range all the time, and it's difficult for them to do.

a reply to: thesaneone

They will rise against the deaths of "innocent" Muslims but

they are not willing to rise up against these terrorists types who are killing other innocent people.

a reply to: introvert


Jihadi websites have nothing to do with the first amendment. Conspiracy to commit terror or murder is not a protected first amendment activity, so this argument doesn't apply here.

How about limiting second amendment rights? I don't suppose you support the second as much as the first, eh? Even though free speech (as you claim terror planning is) can easily be more dangerous than a firearm. Can you see why this approach is hypocritical?

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

They don't care about dying in public, private, or anywhere else. But they DO love their relatives and close friends. I started after another terrorist attack describing how to dissuade the wann-be's...

So you think killing their families would keep them from doing their thing, don't you think that would cause them to ramp up their attacks considering they have nothing left to lose?

You don't START by killing the families. You START by punishing those closest to the terrorist in a way that would make the next terrorist think twice.

It still would not work, you would see more people rising up to the challenge, more home grown terrorism would rise up against the government, your idea would turn the USA into a war zone.

You may be right... more would die due to our active reprisals. It's probably best just to accept a few murders each year from Radical Islamists.

So many are killed here in Chicago every week, that they don't even make the news any more. It's ACCEPTABLE to the population.

The entire U.S. can be conditioned with an "Oh Well.." attitude after enough small terror attacks, like we saw today in NYC.

a reply to: face23785

It's called "gun control"... it means being able to hit your target.

There is also this thing called "leading"... it helps when the target is moving.

TheRedneck

a reply to: face23785

True, but if you're behind the vehicle you can hit the driver by shooting the trunk/rear glass area. The projectiles will penetrate the car, seats, glass and go right into the driver.

Not saying it is always the best choice, but the option should exist nonetheless.

I wouldn't overestimate the training most police officers get, either. Although they have the option of training frequently (even daily if they want), most departments only require weapons qualification once or twice a year (unless this has changed). Fortunately, there are a lot of dedicated police officers out there who take it upon themselves to go above and beyond training reqs.

You bring up a good point though, for those who do train for these types of events, it wouldn't hurt to keep some of the scenarios in mind and train accordingly. Just FYI, I train 4-6 times a month and recommend others do so as much as possible. Although getting most people I know who carry to go out and train/shoot is usually a pretty easy proposition - especially when their good 'ole buddy JB is supplying the ammunition

I suppose Hollywierd and a culture inundated with witchcraft
& filth has so captivated the minds of the majority they fail
to see the obvious patterns of these events.

We'll continue to be blind-sided by these events
until we come to an understanding we're a part
of a global-event-driven architecture to
fulfill an agenda.

More restrictive gun control legislation has
absolutely nothing to do with the perpetrators,
and so-called perpetrators of these mass
shootings events.

Gun legislation agenda is nothing more
than a ruse and misdirection
to keep the majority fighting
amongst themselves.

Omar Mateen
Stephen Paddock
Seung-Hui Cho
Adam Lanza
Micah Xavier Johnson
George Hennard
James Oliver Huberty
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
Patrick Henry Sherrill
Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik
Jiverly Wong
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan
Aaron Alexis

Since this is a so-called conspiracy forum I'll entertain
with the following. I dare you to research it.

Hyper Game Theory to induce Trauma
Based Mind Control Mechanisms. (on a global scale)

#Think

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

It's called "gun control"... it means being able to hit your target.

There is also this thing called "leading"... it helps when the target is moving.

TheRedneck

I'm well aware of what leading is, I mentioned it in my last post. Still easier said than done. Unless you go to an advanced training class where they try to distract you and make you shoot moving targets in realistic scenarios, even expert shots at the range may not perform as well in a real world situation.

My only point is it's not as easy as you make it sound. We're on the same side here.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

If someone inspired by American ideas does something do you call it an "American action" or an "American inspired action"?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: face23785

True, but if you're behind the vehicle you can hit the driver by shooting the trunk/rear glass area. The projectiles will penetrate the car, seats, glass and go right into the driver.

Not saying it is always the best choice, but the option should exist nonetheless.

I wouldn't overestimate the training most police officers get, either. Although they have the option of training frequently (even daily if they want), most departments only require weapons qualification once or twice a year (unless this has changed). Fortunately, there are a lot of dedicated police officers out there who take it upon themselves to go above and beyond training reqs.

You bring up a good point though, for those who do train for these types of events, it wouldn't hurt to keep some of the scenarios in mind and train accordingly. Just FYI, I train 4-6 times a month and recommend others do so as much as possible. Although getting most people I know who carry to go out and train/shoot is usually a pretty easy proposition - especially when their good 'ole buddy JB is supplying the ammunition

I encourage everyone who owns and carries to visit the range whenever they can. It's great that you go often, and bring buddies. As for cops, yes I see your point. I was making that observation based off where I lived in Alaska a few years ago where the local range was reserved every Monday for police training. It was still open if you were a member, and I often went on Mondays since it wasn't that busy, and the police were always there. But you're right, every force may not be like that.

Regardless of the debate on how easy it is to shoot a driver or tires, I encourage everyone here who is legally allowed and competent to get trained, own and carry. It's the same concept as having car insurance or a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. Hopefully you never need it, but if you ever do...