(05-25-2017 09:29 AM)I45owl Wrote:  That said, I cannot fathom how anyone thinks his response is logical. A suicide bombing can't be retroactively stopped by a CCL carrier. Unless the Sheriff is advocating pro-active shooting of anyone that looks Muslim, the statement just doesn't make sense in the context he used it.

It might not have stopped the suicide bombing but a CCW holder likely would have lowered the deal toll in Orlando, San Bernadino, and a firearm stopped the attack at Westminster on 22 March.

(05-25-2017 10:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 09:29 AM)I45owl Wrote:  That said, I cannot fathom how anyone thinks his response is logical. A suicide bombing can't be retroactively stopped by a CCL carrier. Unless the Sheriff is advocating pro-active shooting of anyone that looks Muslim, the statement just doesn't make sense in the context he used it.

It might not have stopped the suicide bombing but a CCW holder likely would have lowered the deal toll in Orlando, San Bernadino, and a firearm stopped the attack at Westminster on 22 March.

Ironically, those attacks happened in a place where gun laws are not as strict as they are in England and yet the person wasn't stopped.

(05-25-2017 10:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 09:29 AM)I45owl Wrote:  That said, I cannot fathom how anyone thinks his response is logical. A suicide bombing can't be retroactively stopped by a CCL carrier. Unless the Sheriff is advocating pro-active shooting of anyone that looks Muslim, the statement just doesn't make sense in the context he used it.

It might not have stopped the suicide bombing but a CCW holder likely would have lowered the deal toll in Orlando, San Bernadino, and a firearm stopped the attack at Westminster on 22 March.

Ironically, those attacks happened in a place where gun laws are not as strict as they are in England and yet the person wasn't stopped.

Primarily because they were committed in locations where guns are prohibited. Funny how that prohibition didn't stop the terrorist shooters.

And Westminster is in London, which last time I checked was in England.

(05-25-2017 08:15 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

Liberals can’t handle the truth.

Quote:A North Texas sheriff who criticized “the left” and “political correctness” in a Facebook post after Monday’s terror attack in Manchester, England, defended his comments Tuesday.

“I stand behind it,” Denton County Sheriff Tracy Murphree told NBC 5. “We need to be realistic about the world we live in.”

The Manchester bombing, which happened at the end of an Ariana Grande concert, left at least 22 dead, including an 8-year-old girl. The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the attack, though an American intelligence official could not verify that, according to the Associated Press. Manchester police identified the bomber as 22-year-old Salman Abedi, a Britain native who died in the attack.

Murphree’s Facebook post about 10 p.m. Monday implored Americans to “pay attention to what is happening in Europe.”

“This is what happens when you disarm your citizens,” Murphree wrote. “When you open your borders without the proper vetting. When you allow political correctness to dictate how you respond to an enemy that wants to kill you. When you allow these radicals to travel to Afghanistan and Iran and simply let them back in.”

He later wrote, “You better wake up America. While you are distracted by the media and the crying of the left, Islamic Jihadist are among us and want to kill you.”

http://www.officer.com/news/12337683/tex...ebook-post

(05-25-2017 08:57 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 08:40 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Nothing wrong with his post.

The fact that he doesn't use logic. How does arming the public stop a bomb? Guy was native. How does open borders apply here? Not being politically correct will magically kill our enemies? Guess you support closing the border and letting no one leave or enter? Does that save us from the millions of murderers already living here? Wish I could live in this perfect fantasy world where nothing happens.

Liberal "logic".

(05-25-2017 10:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 09:29 AM)I45owl Wrote:  That said, I cannot fathom how anyone thinks his response is logical. A suicide bombing can't be retroactively stopped by a CCL carrier. Unless the Sheriff is advocating pro-active shooting of anyone that looks Muslim, the statement just doesn't make sense in the context he used it.

It might not have stopped the suicide bombing but a CCW holder likely would have lowered the deal toll in Orlando, San Bernadino, and a firearm stopped the attack at Westminster on 22 March.

I agree, although you would think that the Fort Hood shooting and other attacks on military bases would've been stopped the same way, but the military is pretty restrictive of who can carry weapons on base, apparently.

I also have to admit that I stopped reading the OP at "when you disarm your citizens" ... strike that phrase and I really have no problem with his statement.

Maybe this Sheriff should focus on a domestic threat to his county residents, much more likely to kill them than a terrorist attack, like opioids!

(05-25-2017 10:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  It might not have stopped the suicide bombing but a CCW holder likely would have lowered the deal toll in Orlando, San Bernadino, and a firearm stopped the attack at Westminster on 22 March.

Would you be willing to bet your life on that assumption?

It 100% depends on the person, and his/her previous training and mental state at the time. You can never say for sure what you'll do until it happens.

If it was an off duty police/military person ... then wow, how lucky would you be? That would be great.
But if it was an average joe, who completed the absolutely minimum training/requirements just to get the license? Might not be so lucky ....

(05-25-2017 03:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  It might not have stopped the suicide bombing but a CCW holder likely would have lowered the deal toll in Orlando, San Bernadino, and a firearm stopped the attack at Westminster on 22 March.

Would you be willing to bet your life on that assumption?

It 100% depends on the person, and his/her previous training and mental state at the time. You can never say for sure what you'll do until it happens.

If it was an off duty police/military person ... then wow, how lucky would you be? That would be great.
But if it was an average joe, who completed the absolutely minimum training/requirements just to get the license? Might not be so lucky ....

How much training do you think the San Bernadino and Orlando killers had? CCL carriers at least gives you a fighting chance in that situation.

The left's logic seems to be "We can't stop all terrorist attacks so let's not do anything to lower the chances of an attack."

(05-25-2017 03:30 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 03:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  It might not have stopped the suicide bombing but a CCW holder likely would have lowered the deal toll in Orlando, San Bernadino, and a firearm stopped the attack at Westminster on 22 March.

Would you be willing to bet your life on that assumption?

It 100% depends on the person, and his/her previous training and mental state at the time. You can never say for sure what you'll do until it happens.

If it was an off duty police/military person ... then wow, how lucky would you be? That would be great.
But if it was an average joe, who completed the absolutely minimum training/requirements just to get the license? Might not be so lucky ....

How much training do you think the San Bernadino and Orlando killers had? CCL carriers at least gives you a fighting chance in that situation.

The left's logic seems to be "We can't stop all terrorist attacks so let's not do anything to lower the chances of an attack."

…or maybe in attacks we can throw them job applications. Isn't that what Liberalturds say is needed, jobs.

(05-25-2017 03:13 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 09:29 AM)I45owl Wrote:  That said, I cannot fathom how anyone thinks his response is logical. A suicide bombing can't be retroactively stopped by a CCL carrier. Unless the Sheriff is advocating pro-active shooting of anyone that looks Muslim, the statement just doesn't make sense in the context he used it.

It might not have stopped the suicide bombing but a CCW holder likely would have lowered the deal toll in Orlando, San Bernadino, and a firearm stopped the attack at Westminster on 22 March.

I agree, although you would think that the Fort Hood shooting and other attacks on military bases would've been stopped the same way, but the military is pretty restrictive of who can carry weapons on base, apparently.

I also have to admit that I stopped reading the OP at "when you disarm your citizens" ... strike that phrase and I really have no problem with his statement.

I think he's talking about an attack in general. A gun isn't going to do much to stop a suicide bomber but it would have helped during the OH, CA and FL attacks.

(05-25-2017 03:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But if it was an average joe, who completed the absolutely minimum training/requirements just to get the license? Might not be so lucky ....

I'm an average Joe and I have the minimum training and requirements to get the license because that's all the law requires. This makes me perfectly qualified for a CCW permit, regardless of the word "minimum." If you are with me at a terrorist attack at least I have a tool to confront trauma..... maybe not successfully, but at least there's a chance. Don't you at least want a chance at life?

(FWIW, more people have been killed by the Minneapolis light rail (10) than have been killed by CCW permit carriers in Minnesota. In ten years, there has been precisely one unjustified homicide carried out by a permittee. Statistically the LRT is infinitely more dangerous than a citizen with a carry permit.)

(05-25-2017 03:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  It might not have stopped the suicide bombing but a CCW holder likely would have lowered the deal toll in Orlando, San Bernadino, and a firearm stopped the attack at Westminster on 22 March.

Would you be willing to bet your life on that assumption?

Absolutely. I'd rather have a slim chance than no chance at all.

Quote:If it was an off duty police/military person ... then wow, how lucky would you be? That would be great.
But if it was an average joe, who completed the absolutely minimum training/requirements just to get the license? Might not be so lucky ....

Chances are pretty much 50/50 that the average CCW holder is going to have more range time than the military/law enforcement and will be more proficient with the weapon.

The University of North Texas is a liberal place, but make no mistake, Denton County is a very conservative county. Our last Sheriff was William B. Travis, a distant cousin of the famous William B. Travis that fought and died at the Alamo.

I have no problem with what the Sheriff Murphree posted. Sounds like common sense to me.

(05-25-2017 03:41 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I'm an average Joe and I have the minimum training and requirements to get the license because that's all the law requires. This makes me perfectly qualified for a CCW permit, regardless of the word "minimum."

To clarify, I am not challenging what the law(s) prescribe for the minimum training, or that someone completing that training should qualify for the permit.

(05-25-2017 03:41 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If you are with me at a terrorist attack at least I have a tool to confront trauma..... maybe not successfully, but at least there's a chance. Don't you at least want a chance at life?

It's not the possibility of living that I'm concerned with. It's the possibility of being inadvertently injured or killed by someone with good intentions.

(05-25-2017 03:41 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  (FWIW, more people have been killed by the Minneapolis light rail (10) than have been killed by CCW permit carriers in Minnesota. In ten years, there has been precisely one unjustified homicide carried out by a permittee. Statistically the LRT is infinitely more dangerous than a citizen with a carry permit.)

It's the rate that matters, not the total number. For example, I also bet that the number of people killed by wild animal mauling at the zoo is fewer than the number killed by light rail.

(05-25-2017 05:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'd rather have a slim chance than no chance at all.

That sounds good on paper, but you're not counting the possibility that someone else's good intentions actually decrease your chances.

(05-25-2017 05:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Chances are pretty much 50/50 that the average CCW holder is going to have more range time than the military/law enforcement and will be more proficient with the weapon.

I hope you can trust me when I say that I'm not dismissing that it takes effort, time, and skill to build marksmanship.

However, just because a permit holder can earn a higher score at the shooting range does not mean he has the other experiences of the military/law officer.

Shooting a moving target is different, shooting an actual person is different, and then there's the simple fact of being in the heat of the moment. It's all different.

And unless you've been in the situation before, you cannot predict how you'll react.

(05-26-2017 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's not the possibility of living that I'm concerned with. It's the possibility of being inadvertently injured or killed by someone with good intentions.

I understand why you are afraid. Your point is not invalid.

That said, a .380 in my pocket still gives you more chance to live than a bullet or ball bearings ripping through your torso from a terrorist.

And nothing discourages returning fire like the prospect of another shot coming shortly.

(05-25-2017 03:33 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 03:13 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 09:29 AM)I45owl Wrote:  That said, I cannot fathom how anyone thinks his response is logical. A suicide bombing can't be retroactively stopped by a CCL carrier. Unless the Sheriff is advocating pro-active shooting of anyone that looks Muslim, the statement just doesn't make sense in the context he used it.

It might not have stopped the suicide bombing but a CCW holder likely would have lowered the deal toll in Orlando, San Bernadino, and a firearm stopped the attack at Westminster on 22 March.

I agree, although you would think that the Fort Hood shooting and other attacks on military bases would've been stopped the same way, but the military is pretty restrictive of who can carry weapons on base, apparently.

I also have to admit that I stopped reading the OP at "when you disarm your citizens" ... strike that phrase and I really have no problem with his statement.

I think he's talking about an attack in general. A gun isn't going to do much to stop a suicide bomber but it would have helped during the OH, CA and FL attacks.

But it didn't. That is a fact.

In the CA attack, there were citizens who had weapons and they still couldn't stop it.

(05-26-2017 09:48 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I understand why you are afraid. Your point is not invalid.

That said, a .380 in my pocket still gives you more chance to live than a bullet or ball bearings ripping through your torso from a terrorist.

And nothing discourages returning fire like the prospect of another shot coming shortly.

Let me ask this. If a gun is a deterrent of crime, then why conceal it?

(05-26-2017 10:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Let me ask this. If a gun is a deterrent of crime, then why conceal it?

If I did have a gun and a carry permit, I’d never carry openly.

Part of it is that is that it’s the sort of thing you want to keep under wraps if you ever need it

Part of it is that the anti-gun movement has trained the weak-minded to be such incredible ninnies so that to some people, a scary imposition.

And while I disagree with them, there’s no point in picking fights I don’t need to. I’ll demur on carrying openly since while there are as many good reasons to carry openly as there are to wear camouflage, there are exactly the same reasons not to.

(05-26-2017 11:00 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Let me ask this. If a gun is a deterrent of crime, then why conceal it?

If I did have a gun and a carry permit, I’d never carry openly.

Part of it is that is that it’s the sort of thing you want to keep under wraps if you ever need it

Part of it is that the anti-gun movement has trained the weak-minded to be such incredible ninnies so that to some people, a scary imposition.

And while I disagree with them, there’s no point in picking fights I don’t need to. I’ll demur on carrying openly since while there are as many good reasons to carry openly as there are to wear camouflage, there are exactly the same reasons not to.

What good reasons are there?

For the life of me I cannot think of one good reason to want to open carry.