TexasCHLforum.com

Skiprr wrote:

VMI77 wrote:What about stories like that of the store owner in Houston who got in a gun battle with four gang bangers [sic] and though wounded himself, killed all of them, saving himself and his wife from being murdered? They were Hispanic, so it seems like political correctness alone would make that a great story, but a huge percentage of the population would find that kind of bravery and indomitable spirit inspiring. Not in the national news, nor is virtually any such story of self-defense. Those of us who don't live in Houston probably wouldn't even know about it if it wasn't for the internet and forums like this one.

To remind newer visitors of this act of bravery, from almost exactly one year ago: viewtopic.php?f=108&t=40467" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ramon Castillo was a gun owner, albeit without any significant training. Castillo nevertheless proved that commitment, intent, and fortitude can overcome armed and overwhelming odds. He had firearms, and he was protecting himself and his wife from certain death.

Sandy Hooks Elementary School Principal Dawn Hochsprung did everything she could do in the first encounter with the mentally ill shooter. She sacrificed her life trying to stop him.

But all she could do was switch on the PA system as a way to warn the various classrooms then, unarmed, physically confront the shooter who had broken through the glass front door.

President Obama is correct: something must be done.

Removing firearms from the hands of honest, moral, law-abiding citizens is not the correct answer. In fact, the obverse is the solution.

We now know how brave and fearless Dawn Hochsprung was.

With even a minimal amount of firearms training, if carrying a concealed handgun Dawn Hochsprung might have ended the threat from this 20-year-old, mentally-impaired assassin before children were ever harmed.

Before a single child was harmed.

Oldgringo wrote:Actually, today's media doesn't care about who eats whom. Their sole concern is ratings and the compensation package to those with the highest ratings.

And that's the way it is. Good night.

That's a pile of unmitigated hogwash.

pcgizzmo wrote:I got in trouble for talking about Religion on here not too long ago. I won't say any more but it seems to me God didn't do much to take care of these little kids. Someone in that massacre is probably thanking God he spared there kids. The flip side to that is God didn't look out for the other ones. Hmmmm... Maybe things just happen and God doesn't have anything to do with it.

Or maybe, just maybe, God isn't the only actor on the stage.

ctsmith9962 wrote:People need to stop putting blame on video games, guns, god, school, how you are raised, and other crap. It happened because he decided to do it! It is his fault and no one else is to blame. Why does the media try to find all kinds of reason for his action?

The idea that a human being could commit such a vile act without reference to anything outside themselves is myopic. Human beings do not act in a vacuum. Their behaviors are the result of a complex combination of factors including (but not limited to) their environment, their family interactions, their religious beliefs, the culture they live in, the attitudes of those they interact with (which includes not only "real" life acquaintances but tv, movies, books, video games, social networks, etc., etc.) and much, much more.

America has a well known gun culture. That culture makes guns both acceptable and evil. If guns didn't exist, evil people would use whatever means did exist to accomplish the same ends.

So, yes, video games are to blame. They affect your mind in a way they would not be affected were the games not available. So is TV, movies, the American attitude toward sex, the divorce rate and all the other complex factors that we interact with every day. For many of us, we believe these things have no impact on us because we consider ourselves to be "normal". This simply is not true. It is impossible not to be affected by the influences that surround you. The defense is to avoid those things that impact humans negatively, but that is considered "old-fashioned" and "fuddy duddy". The cumulative effect of all these influences manifests itself in a culture that has gone from proud independence and a defiant spirit (as embodied in the thousands of stories of bravery and odds-overcoming known to all Americans) to abject submission to a government that slides ever more quickly toward tyranny every day.

If you think allowing everyone to carry everywhere will solve the problem, then how do you explain this?

The "solution" to this problem is to promote a culture that celebrates life, not death, and promotes individual responsibility. That will reduce the number of occurrences. To completely stop it, you would need a totalitarian society where every person is monitored on video 24/7/365 and there are enough "police" to deal with every "misbehavior" before it affects others. Then your "only" problem would the corruption of government officials.

benenglishtx wrote:

A-R wrote:Worst American school massacre of all time happened ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You correctly specified "school massacre". Thanks for that. The wiki page you pointed to, however, needs editing. It says that Bath, with 38 victims, was the "fourth-deadliest massacre in U.S. history, behind the Oklahoma City bombing, the Mountain Meadows massacre and 9/11." That's clearly wrong. Offhand, the Happy Land arson murder comes to mind as having more victims. In that case, 87 people died. The killer used less than a gallon of gasoline and a couple of matches.

This is germane. Why?

Note the use of language in the media. They now refer to "mass shootings" instead of "mass murders". If they referred to "mass murders", they'd have to include Happy Land, 9/11, and a bunch of other killings. Yesterday's shooting would fall way down on the list and people would then be reminded that crazy people can find ways to kill lots of people at one time WITHOUT using guns. The nicely-alliterative phrase "mass murder" that was once common and is exactly the sort of wording that a good writer or newsreader *should* use is abandoned in favor of the more cumbersome "mass shooting" solely, in my opinion, because many folks in the media will use any excuse to push focus away from the tragedy of the loss of life and toward, however subtly, pushing a gun-control agenda.

Or maybe I'm just observant.

FIxed it for ya.

barstoolguru wrote:And my brother had sex with hookers all his life and for some odd reason he has no respect for woman and has been married 3 times....but thousands of people have sex with hookers with no problems... go figure.
Any way you want to rationalize it we are a product of our environment

It's not hard to figure out what's going on. There are any number of aphorisms that describe the wisdom man has accumulated over time. The one that comes to mind to me to describe America today is if you lie down with pigs, you'll get some on ya. Not everyone will be affected the same way. Some won't even notice the odor. Others will never be able to get it out of their minds.

America today is like a big pig sty. It affects us all but some notice it more than others. You get used to the odor after a while, and so it no longer bothers you so much.

So people have sex on their first "date" in the movies, and some are not even bothered by it. A politician takes bribes and many shrug their shoulders and say they're all crooks, what are you gonna do? Kicking him out of office never enters their thoughts. A woman has children with seven different men and draws welfare for each of them, and more people are concerned that her checks come on time than the damage it does to the psyche of our society.

Why are we seeing more and more of these mass shootings? Because our society has been in the pig sty for so long that it's beginning to seem normal to some. Pigs will eat anything, including other pigs.

TexasGal wrote:I just watched Obama's speech. He listed other mass shootings and said we must do something to change this regardless of the politics. He reached up to his eye several times to wipe away a tear. The thing I noticed was his eyes were not red. His voice was steady. His facial muscles were not twitching in an effort not to cry. The "tears" were not left to run far enough to be visible on camera. I compared that to the speech I saw him give his team after his re-election. The tears were running, and he struggled to manage his composure. He voice broke and he had to pause. I am saddened to realize he was more visibly moved when he thanked his re-election team than he was to discuss the deaths of so many children. Oh yeah, he will be using this to every possible advantage not to make schools more secure, but to disarm the law abiding. He well knows criminals and the psychotic will not care about any new laws.

I despise Obama. Can't stand him. Hate what he's doing to my country. I just viewed his speech, and I disagree with you. I think it did affect him. I think he was visibly upset and had to gather his composure more than once before continuing.