WWTBAM Bored

A conservative news anchor has some words for President Obama. Tomi Lahren, an anchor at One American News Network, slammed President Obama on his “half-way, half-baked, tip-toe, be-friendly-to-jihadis mentality.

Conservative news anchor’s message to Obama goes viral

Let's show them what the United States of America looks like up close and personal.

Since this little girl was obviously too busy playing with her GI Joe action figures a decade ago to notice, she must have missed what happened the last time we showed "them" what the US looked like up close and personal. It was called the Iraq War and we sure showed them. We did such a good job of showing them that we don't have any more problems with them today.

Oops.

Viral? Only in your universe.

The U.S. is going after terrorists in the Middle East. Here's the latest one:

US Kills Senior Khorasan Group Leader

Does Tomi want a "war on Muslim terrorism" in the U.S.? That's a risky strategy that could create an "us vs. them" mentality in the Muslim community.

Until the very end, I thought it was going to be an impassioned plea for gun control. Guess I should have known better.

If we do go to war against a dispersed enemy in unfavorable terrain, does she plan to volunteer? --Bob

If shit continues we'll all be volunteers.

Bob78164 wrote:Until the very end, I thought it was going to be an impassioned plea for gun control. Guess I should have known better.

What happens when we arm military recruiters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/ ... DI20150717

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Until the very end, I thought it was going to be an impassioned plea for gun control. Guess I should have known better.

What happens when we arm military recruiters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/ ... DI20150717

I'll take that over what happened when we didn't. Seems you prefer the Chattanooga result.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Until the very end, I thought it was going to be an impassioned plea for gun control. Guess I should have known better.

What happens when we arm military recruiters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/ ... DI20150717

I'll take that over what happened when we didn't. Seems you prefer the Chattanooga result.

No, but the problem is that it won't be a one for one tradeoff. There will be a number more accidental shootings.

And it looks like one of the Marines who was killed did have a sidearm on him at the Navy Center as well, so I guess that your solution didn't save those lives either.

Here's a solution that did work: putting bulletproof glass on the first recruiting center that the killer targeted. No one was killed there.

But that wouldn't be nearly as macho as getting five people killed despite one of the Marines being armed.

http://www.guns.com/2015/07/22/2-servic ... een-armed/

silverscreenselect wrote: No, but the problem is that it won't be a one for one tradeoff. There will be a number more accidental shootings.

Five deaths vs. one injury. We've got four more accidental injuries before the numbers are equal, though a long way to go until the impacts are equal.

silverscreenselect wrote:And it looks like one of the Marines who was killed did have a sidearm on him at the Navy Center as well, so I guess that your solution didn't save those lives either.

Your ignorance of firearms use, effectiveness at distance, defense vs. ambush is laughable. Perhaps because of the marine shooting back only five died vs. twenty-five.

silverscreenselect wrote:Here's a solution that did work: putting bulletproof glass on the first recruiting center that the killer targeted. No one was killed there.

But that wouldn't be nearly as macho as getting five people killed despite one of the Marines being armed.

Yep, that's the only solution. Putting bullet proof glass on everything. The only problem is, at some point people have to come and go from those buildings. Or do you think crazies will only try to shoot people IN the buildings? Bullet proof glass didn't save anyone at VA Tech. Or Sandy Hook. Or Columbine. Or Aurora. Or Charleston.

BackInTex wrote: Your ignorance of firearms use, effectiveness at distance, defense vs. ambush is laughable. Perhaps because of the marine shooting back only five died vs. twenty-five.

Yep, that's the only solution. Putting bullet proof glass on everything. The only problem is, at some point people have to come and go from those buildings. Or do you think crazies will only try to shoot people IN the buildings? Bullet proof glass didn't save anyone at VA Tech. Or Sandy Hook. Or Columbine. Or Aurora. Or Charleston.

Yes, I am aware of the difference between ambush and defense which means that armed aggressors who intend to shoot always have an advantage in these situations. In real life, John Wayne doesn't outdraw an Islamic terrorist merely because he's on the side of justice. And if a trained US Marine wasn't able to prevent people from being killed, what does that say about the abilities of the host of other "good citizens with guns" to do so? Which is why putting lots of guns in lots of people's hands only leads to more accidental shootings like those I mentioned and more shootings of "suspicious" characters who turn out not to be dangerous at all.

And there's a whole lot more than one or five accidental firearm shootings in the US every year.

And here's one big difference between bulletproof glass and armed citizens. Bulletproof glass never accidentally shoots anyone or gets drunk or gets angry or gets despondent or makes a bad mistake in judgment.

silverscreenselect wrote: And here's one big difference between bulletproof glass and armed citizens. Bulletproof glass never accidentally shoots anyone or gets drunk or gets angry or gets despondent or makes a bad mistake in judgment.

I think you've just solved many of this country's issues.

Instead of police, we replace them with bulletproof glass. The same with our entire military. Trevon Martin might still be alive today if Twin Lakes had just put bulletproof glass around the entire subdivision. Everyone at Columbine would be alive today if each had their own bulletproof glass box to walk around in. Too bad you didn't let Obama in on your thoughts. He could have sent bulletproof glass into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Genius!

I'm buying stock in the bulletproof glass makers.

BackInTex wrote:
I think you've just solved many of this country's issues.

Instead of police, we replace them with bulletproof glass. The same with our entire military. Trevon Martin might still be alive today if Twin Lakes had just put bulletproof glass around the entire subdivision. Everyone at Columbine would be alive today if each had their own bulletproof glass box to walk around in. Too bad you didn't let Obama in on your thoughts. He could have sent bulletproof glass into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Genius!

I'm buying stock in the bulletproof glass makers.

You've demonstrated the typical conservative ability to understand about half of what you read. The goal of someone who runs a business (and a recruiting office is a business) is to keep customers safe. That's one reason why the center with bulletproof glass had no deaths and the one with a Marine with a gun had five dead. Your only suggestion is always more guns, not even when it's shown how much more effective other measures can be in protecting people.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Your ignorance of firearms use, effectiveness at distance, defense vs. ambush is laughable. Perhaps because of the marine shooting back only five died vs. twenty-five.

Yep, that's the only solution. Putting bullet proof glass on everything. The only problem is, at some point people have to come and go from those buildings. Or do you think crazies will only try to shoot people IN the buildings? Bullet proof glass didn't save anyone at VA Tech. Or Sandy Hook. Or Columbine. Or Aurora. Or Charleston.

Yes, I am aware of the difference between ambush and defense which means that armed aggressors who intend to shoot always have an advantage in these situations. In real life, John Wayne doesn't outdraw an Islamic terrorist merely because he's on the side of justice. And if a trained US Marine wasn't able to prevent people from being killed, what does that say about the abilities of the host of other "good citizens with guns" to do so? Which is why putting lots of guns in lots of people's hands only leads to more accidental shootings like those I mentioned and more shootings of "suspicious" characters who turn out not to be dangerous at all.

And there's a whole lot more than one or five accidental firearm shootings in the US every year.

And here's one big difference between bulletproof glass and armed citizens. Bulletproof glass never accidentally shoots anyone or gets drunk or gets angry or gets despondent or makes a bad mistake in judgment.

SSS, I know you have a good heart. I'm sure you grieve sincerely for every accidental shooting that occurs.
But accidents will occur. They are part of life. So are the occasional crazy, stupid or careless person. Even the most intelligent person in the world can make a mistake, and sometimes a tragic mistake.

You cannot make any law or regulation that will ban accidents. You cannot make any law or regulation that will ban stupid, careless or crazy people. Take that out of the equation.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
I think you've just solved many of this country's issues.

Instead of police, we replace them with bulletproof glass. The same with our entire military. Trevon Martin might still be alive today if Twin Lakes had just put bulletproof glass around the entire subdivision. Everyone at Columbine would be alive today if each had their own bulletproof glass box to walk around in. Too bad you didn't let Obama in on your thoughts. He could have sent bulletproof glass into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Genius!

I'm buying stock in the bulletproof glass makers.

You've demonstrated the typical conservative ability to understand about half of what you read. The goal of someone who runs a business (and a recruiting office is a business) is to keep customers safe. That's one reason why the center with bulletproof glass had no deaths and the one with a Marine with a gun had five dead. Your only suggestion is always more guns, not even when it's shown how much more effective other measures can be in protecting people.

Hold on just a minute.... is it standard practice for businesses to have bulletproof glass in their windows? I'm thinking probably not what with all the store windows that get easily smashed by less deadly things like rocks. I'm sure your neighborhood, if it's anything like you say it is, has plenty of bars on shop windows... I'll bet they're all basic, ordinary glass.

And furthermore, I'm sure that many, many businesses who use regular, good old fashioned breakable glass do not have employees packing to "protect" the place. So what in the hell does bulletproof glass have to do with the fucking gun control debate? I hate guns as much as you do, SSS, but this is the nuttiest straw I've ever seen you grasp for to try to back up one of your points...

lb13

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Your ignorance of firearms use, effectiveness at distance, defense vs. ambush is laughable. Perhaps because of the marine shooting back only five died vs. twenty-five.

Yep, that's the only solution. Putting bullet proof glass on everything. The only problem is, at some point people have to come and go from those buildings. Or do you think crazies will only try to shoot people IN the buildings? Bullet proof glass didn't save anyone at VA Tech. Or Sandy Hook. Or Columbine. Or Aurora. Or Charleston.

Yes, I am aware of the difference between ambush and defense which means that armed aggressors who intend to shoot always have an advantage in these situations. In real life, John Wayne doesn't outdraw an Islamic terrorist merely because he's on the side of justice. And if a trained US Marine wasn't able to prevent people from being killed, what does that say about the abilities of the host of other "good citizens with guns" to do so? Which is why putting lots of guns in lots of people's hands only leads to more accidental shootings like those I mentioned and more shootings of "suspicious" characters who turn out not to be dangerous at all.

And there's a whole lot more than one or five accidental firearm shootings in the US every year.

And here's one big difference between bulletproof glass and armed citizens. Bulletproof glass never accidentally shoots anyone or gets drunk or gets angry or gets despondent or makes a bad mistake in judgment.

SSS, I know you have a good heart. I'm sure you grieve sincerely for every accidental shooting that occurs.
But accidents will occur. They are part of life. So are the occasional crazy, stupid or careless person. Even the most intelligent person in the world can make a mistake, and sometimes a tragic mistake.

You cannot make any law or regulation that will ban accidents. You cannot make any law or regulation that will ban stupid, careless or crazy people. Take that out of the equation.

Yeah, like this idiot: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... fired.html

Army Calls Civilian 'Protectors' Plaguing Military Recruitment Centers A 'Security Threat'

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.co ... iter_id=17

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You cannot make any law or regulation that will ban accidents. You cannot make any law or regulation that will ban stupid, careless or crazy people. Take that out of the equation.

If we followed that logic, we wouldn't have any seatbelt, airbag, or motorcycle helmet laws.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You cannot make any law or regulation that will ban accidents. You cannot make any law or regulation that will ban stupid, careless or crazy people. Take that out of the equation.

If we followed that logic, we wouldn't have any seatbelt, airbag, or motorcycle helmet laws.

No, if we followed your logic, we would have no cars or motorcycles.

And there's a whole lot more than one or five accidental firearm shootings in the US every year.

And here's one big difference between bulletproof glass and armed citizens. Bulletproof glass never accidentally shoots anyone or gets drunk or gets angry or gets despondent or makes a bad mistake in judgment.

SSS, I know you have a good heart. I'm sure you grieve sincerely for every accidental shooting that occurs.
But accidents will occur. They are part of life. So are the occasional crazy, stupid or careless person. Even the most intelligent person in the world can make a mistake, and sometimes a tragic mistake.

You cannot make any law or regulation that will ban accidents. You cannot make any law or regulation that will ban stupid, careless or crazy people. Take that out of the equation.[/quote]

Bob Juch wrote:Yeah, like this idiot: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... fired.html

Finally, something you posted that I can agree with!

[edit]
(Oh. There's a link, too. Didn't notice it at first. Never mind.)

SSS your bullet-proof glass argument is ridiculous on its face.

The bullet-proof glass would have been completely ineffective had the shooter decided to simply force his way into the recruiting center instead of just shooting at it- like he did at the Navy Center.

He killed the five people while he was INSIDE the center- bullet-proof glass would not have saved them.

It was the whims of the shooter and not the glass that meant the five died at the Navy Center and not the recruiting center.

And SSS...there will NEVER be no guns in this country...your argument is a non-starter.

So rather than live in a fantasy world where the US is some unarmed paradise, deal with the world as it is and start offering solutions that take reality into account.

Jeemie wrote: He killed the five people while he was INSIDE the center- bullet-proof glass would not have saved them.

It was the whims of the shooter and not the glass that meant the five died at the Navy Center and not the recruiting center.

No, it was more like changed tactics when he saw his first attack didn't work and he had the time to reach a second target and try something different.

The bulletproof glass undoubtedly saved the lives of people inside the first center and gave police extra time to locate him. That time didn't prevent him from reaching the second center but it well might have allowed police to arrive there earlier and finally stop him.

The sad fact is that in today's society, any place where people gather in public is a target for someone with a gun and a grudge. That includes recruiting centers, movie theaters, churches, courthouses, and schools, but it also includes every single place of business, store, restaurant, bar, shopping mall, stadium, auditorium, and other location where multiple people are located.

And whenever one of these tragedies occurs, right wing yahoos have only one solution, put more guns in the hands of more people in these locations in the hopes that somehow one of them will be in the right spot at the right time and be able to do the right thing. Well, we had a right person at the right time at the Navy Center and it didn't help And doing what the NRA wants will ensure that we have a lot more wrong people in the wrong places.

There's a reason the NRA stokes these fires: they're good for business. I'm willing to bet you'll see a healthy spike in weapon sales in the next few weeks. And that's why they ridicule solutions that many businesses are successfully implementing that don't involve putting more guns on the streets. Bulletproof glass is one, and there are plenty others. The most effective is actually banning guns in the place of business. That's the single most effective deterrent of workplace shooting incidents.

And let's not even start with the way in which the NRA and a number of the people on this Bored try to shoot down every gun control measure proposed because it can't stop every shooting.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Jeemie wrote: He killed the five people while he was INSIDE the center- bullet-proof glass would not have saved them.

It was the whims of the shooter and not the glass that meant the five died at the Navy Center and not the recruiting center.

No, it was more like changed tactics when he saw his first attack didn't work and he had the time to reach a second target and try something different.

The bulletproof glass undoubtedly saved the lives of people inside the first center and gave police extra time to locate him. That time didn't prevent him from reaching the second center but it well might have allowed police to arrive there earlier and finally stop him.

The sad fact is that in today's society, any place where people gather in public is a target for someone with a gun and a grudge. That includes recruiting centers, movie theaters, churches, courthouses, and schools, but it also includes every single place of business, store, restaurant, bar, shopping mall, stadium, auditorium, and other location where multiple people are located.

And whenever one of these tragedies occurs, right wing yahoos have only one solution, put more guns in the hands of more people in these locations in the hopes that somehow one of them will be in the right spot at the right time and be able to do the right thing. Well, we had a right person at the right time at the Navy Center and it didn't help And doing what the NRA wants will ensure that we have a lot more wrong people in the wrong places.

There's a reason the NRA stokes these fires: they're good for business. I'm willing to bet you'll see a healthy spike in weapon sales in the next few weeks. And that's why they ridicule solutions that many businesses are successfully implementing that don't involve putting more guns on the streets. Bulletproof glass is one, and there are plenty others. The most effective is actually banning guns in the place of business. That's the single most effective deterrent of workplace shooting incidents.

And let's not even start with the way in which the NRA and a number of the people on this Bored try to shoot down every gun control measure proposed because it can't stop every shooting.

Anyone who disagrees with you seems to be a 'right wing yahoo', 'extremist', 'redneck', 'racist', 'homophobe', or my favorite 'mouth breather'. You never seem to run out of disparaging names to call people or groups who don't agree with you. You seem to filter your world through such stereotypes. Such a shame.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Jeemie wrote: He killed the five people while he was INSIDE the center- bullet-proof glass would not have saved them.

It was the whims of the shooter and not the glass that meant the five died at the Navy Center and not the recruiting center.

No, it was more like changed tactics when he saw his first attack didn't work and he had the time to reach a second target and try something different.

The bulletproof glass undoubtedly saved the lives of people inside the first center and gave police extra time to locate him. That time didn't prevent him from reaching the second center but it well might have allowed police to arrive there earlier and finally stop him.

The sad fact is that in today's society, any place where people gather in public is a target for someone with a gun and a grudge. That includes recruiting centers, movie theaters, churches, courthouses, and schools, but it also includes every single place of business, store, restaurant, bar, shopping mall, stadium, auditorium, and other location where multiple people are located.

And whenever one of these tragedies occurs, right wing yahoos have only one solution, put more guns in the hands of more people in these locations in the hopes that somehow one of them will be in the right spot at the right time and be able to do the right thing. Well, we had a right person at the right time at the Navy Center and it didn't help And doing what the NRA wants will ensure that we have a lot more wrong people in the wrong places.

There's a reason the NRA stokes these fires: they're good for business. I'm willing to bet you'll see a healthy spike in weapon sales in the next few weeks. And that's why they ridicule solutions that many businesses are successfully implementing that don't involve putting more guns on the streets. Bulletproof glass is one, and there are plenty others. The most effective is actually banning guns in the place of business. That's the single most effective deterrent of workplace shooting incidents.

And let's not even start with the way in which the NRA and a number of the people on this Bored try to shoot down every gun control measure proposed because it can't stop every shooting.

The recruiting center did not have bulletproof glass. It appears to be tempered glass.

silverscreenselect wrote:No, it was more like changed tactics when he saw his first attack didn't work and he had the time to reach a second target and try something different.

His first tactics were stupid. He announced his presence and intent to do violence before he was in position to actually do violence.

If he wanted to kill people at the recruiting center, all he had to do was walk in, and THEN start opening fire.

His idiocy, not the glass (bullet proof or tempered or otherwise) saved the lives at the recruiting center.

It's flat-out obvious.