TexasCHLforum.com

Jim Beaux wrote:This hurts.



Dylann Roof Reportedly Almost Didn't Go Through With Church Shooting Because 'Everyone Was So Nice To Him'


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/1 ... mg00000067" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The comments are ...... Scary

Indeed, the comments are scary. The feeling there seems to be so based on gut reaction that only the trolls are able to call up actual facts to support a reasoned debate. History is not just being re-written, but re-invented. Fox News has become Satan himself, and anyone who has ever held a view expressed there is a minor demon to be eradicated. "Foaming at the mouth" is an appropriate description of many of those making comments. I do believe the Progressive Ministry of Dis-Information has been far more effective than I could ever be comfortable with.

We are on a forum created for the purpose of discussing concealed carry and related topics judging by its name alone. Given that this event happened in a de-facto gun-free (for law abiding citizens) zone, it seems natural and appropriate to comment on other potential results under other sets of rules. Further, it seems natural and appropriate that even an NRA Director and host of the site would comment on it. The nature of the comment that I've seen from long time members here did not seem to blame the victims for getting themselves killed. Rather, these comments point out that under different laws there might be other, perhaps less tragic, outcomes, and it is wrong to make any individual with the God-given right to defend themselves a defenseless victim by law.

Why do some people/groups seem to feel that they know what is best for everyone else to the point that they won't tolerate any other viewpoint? I/we advocate only that it is wrong to enact laws which inhibit any person's ability to protect ourselves against an attack with whatever tools we feel warranted to prevail over the attacker. Evil exists in this world and the threat of a violent attack can and does occur, often when least expected. We recognize this and hope that our choices will help us prevent harm to ourselves and others. That IN NO WAY equates to advocating for the ability to attack someone unprovoked, something good laws forbid. It also IN NO WAY means that we want every person armed -- there are indeed people whose actions prove them a risk to others whether armed or not, and there are plenty of good people who can and should be able to choose not to be armed.

Abhorrence of violence is a common thread wherever on the spectrum your political identity lies. Something Col. Jeff Cooper wrote resonates with me, as someone who is protective of the lives of myself and those I hold dear. It is, "If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear his victim."

Welcome to the Forum, Mikesurf111.

No one in their right mind loves massacres, or the loss of innocent life. No one on this Forum that I know of loves massacres or the loss of innocent life. We all care greatly for each life around us, and choose to protect those lives as we can with the tools available to us, including locks on our doors, alarms, our pet dogs, knives, guns, table lamps or whatever else may help us prevail over an imminent threat. To us, it is the height of lunacy to assume that violence will never come our way (even in a church, as this most current event illustrates) and therefore not be prepared to face it if it ever does. Each of us prays that we are never forced to face a violent attacker, but we also pray that we are prepared and able to stop the attack if it occurs. I pray also that you and your family similarly never come face-to-face with an attacker -- I fear that your un-thinking vitriol will hold them at bay but a short while.

Welcome to the Forum, Rachel.

Blame for the murders indeed sits squarely on the person who actualized his evil intent upon these nine victims. My heart aches for the lives lost in such a way, and I pray that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. Whenever we look at tragedy and grief, we like to consider whether other policies and actions of anyone directly involved or nearby could have changed the course of events. IMO, Charles' response is in this vein, and is not blaming the victims but rather positing that different actions before hand MAY (or may not) have resulted in less loss of life, and would certainly have provided a potential force option to be used by those in that room who did not want to be victims. I view myself, Charles, and most of the members on this forum as persons of peace who have an aversion to the idea of being forced to be victims. I sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that everyone else in this world is likewise a similarly rational, peace-loving, deadly risk-averse person, and then get caught up considering a very different viewpoint but to date I haven't found another that seems rational and a good fit for me.

Leveraging tragic events to push an agenda is the central play in the Progressive-Democrat (collectivist - Nanny Government, etc...) playbook. Within minutes of this latest tragedy, speechwriters were honing the rhetoric (featuring well-known talking points) for the Administration. Within hours, Obama took to the airwaves touting "Gun Control" but clearly had more important fund-raising to do so they missed some other talking points, and the DOJ came out on "Hate Crime". All across the Left, the hue and cry began with token condolences tossed in to sound like they care. None of these knee-jerk emotional pleas are really about helping the grieving community or about addressing the real problem (what each person's response to an existential threat or to evil can and should be -- I assume here that most people realize that there is evil in the world and existential threats do occur). These are simply about using an event as a springboard to consolidate power. If the left truly cared about individuals, restricting individual liberty would not be one of their "answers", particularly where it creates potential victims of violence. If they truly cared about individuals and society, breaking down the bedrock of said society -- faith and family -- would not be central to their agenda and policies. While I may regret the timing of the rebuttals to their predicted rhetoric about this tragic event, rebuttal is required else we yield the floor entirely to them and continue down the resultant victim-riddled path to Statist hell.