Imagine you're in a theater seeing a concert when gunshots start ringing out from the balcony. You see people all around you being struck by bullets. You begin running in panic like anyone would in such a situation. But you've also prepared for moments like this, which is why you have a concealed handgun that you're licensed to carry.
Instead of heading for the exits you head for a staircase up to the balcony, gun drawn and prepared to intervene. In the meantime, three other responsible concealed carriers who were already in the balcony have drawn their weapons and shot the terrorist attackers down where they stood. You emerge from the stairwell, gun pointed and ready, to see three people brandishing recently fired guns.
buy Flomax generic buynoprescriptiononlinerxx.com over the counter
From the opposite stairwell another concealed carrier emerges and sees the same three armed people plus a fourth one – you – rapidly advancing and pointing his weapon. Meanwhile, more people on the floor of the theater have drawn their legally carried firearms and have begun, with little disciple but understandable motivation, firing toward the balcony. The terrorists are dead. But nobody knows that. All anybody sees and knows is a bunch of people are running around with guns, some of whom are firing. Then the police enter, fully expecting to confront armed terrorists. There are even more terrorists than expected, they think. Look at all these people running around shooting…
This scenario, which gives more than the benefit of doubt to arguments made by concealed carry advocates in terms of their accuracy and ability to accurately shoot armed attackers in a panic situation, demonstrates the biggest flaw in the logic of ordinary people as armed vigilantes: the inability to accurately identify the target. Unless they actually see the people who initiated the shooting with their own eyes, nobody has any idea who or what their target is. Do you think that will stop anyone from shooting? Full of panic, adrenaline, and Rambo fantasies, is anyone really going to stop and say, "Hmm. I don't have a full and accurate description of the assailant, so I better not shoot"? Of course not. They'll do what any ordinary person would do in that situation, which is attack whoever looks like what he or she thinks A Terrorist should look like. Hell, if I were holding a gun and I saw another stranger running at me, gun extended, in the dark in a room full of screaming people, I'd shoot him. You would too. Because you have no idea who he is or what his intentions are, nor he about you.
That's why these programs intended to teach children to attack school shooters are so fundamentally flawed. They suffer from the same fallacy that if we teach kids to be vigilantes (Because that's easier than passing reasonable restrictions on firearms, obviously) we assume that they can identify who is and is not a Threat. I mean, if we teach a bunch of middle school kids to attack people who make them feel threatened or afraid…what could go wrong? It's not like we already have a massive problem in our society with people considering remote proximity to a black male or a Mooslem-lookin' fella a legitimate Threat.
In theory the idea makes sense. If one knows with total certainty who the school shooter is, then attacking makes at least as much sense as waiting for him to run out of ammunition. Like all theoretical exercises, though, it falls well short of reality. In a perfect world we would all have a movie-viewer's or video game player's certainty about who the Bad Guy is. In a perfect world we'd also have a pony and a million dollars in the bank. To make as intensely disturbing a policy decision as teaching small children to attack whomever they perceive to be a threat based on a hope that they'll make judicious and accurate decisions…well, as the titular character says in the holiday classic Bad Santa, hope in one hand and crap in the other. See which hand fills up first.
62 thoughts on “MISIDENTIFICATION”
From the article you linked: "If teachers and students are unable to evacuate or barricade the door, they are instructed to throw heavy objects and tackle the shooter."
That strikes me as a perfectly rational thing to do in the given situation (which is rather different from the one you imagined). With the school on lockdown, there is no chance of misidentifying the active shooter as he tries to force his way into a classroom. And if he can't be kept out, he must be subdued. The third option for students at that point–hiding away from the door–would be suicidal.
Perhaps you're disturbed by the training itself. But that's what's necessary to overcome everyone's first instinct, which would be to run and hide as the shooter enters the room.
Granted, this may all be overkill if the school has classroom doors that can be secured. Nevertheless, there *are* self-defense situations where it makes sense to mob your attacker.
To construct and enact a policy decision of teaching small children to attack whomever they perceive to be a threat based on a hope that they'll make judicious and accurate decisions…is a reflection of a society made mad by fear.
If you want more evidence that this would fail–but with adults–look at the effort by a website The Truth About Guns, in which they aimed to reenact the Charlie Hebdo shooting, with armed participants, to prove that it would have saved lives. Spoiler:it didn't: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2909827/Texas-pro-gun-group-enact-Paris-attacks-time-armed-victim-able-prevent-massacre.html
My local county schools were built during St. Ronnie's era, and very few of them even have inner walls, much less have securable doors–cost savings, you know! Walls and doors cost money, so spout some nonsense about "open-style learning" and use the money savings to vote yourself a raise!
Also, it's a mighty big assumption that kids are going to automatically recognize that someone is a stranger. My local high school has nearly 4000 kids. With that many kids, you need several vice-principals and other administrative staff, and it's highly unlikely that any random classroom would contain kids that know every single adult by face.
Instructing children to attack shooters falls into the category of doing something to show that something is being done. It's the sort of institutional thinking that led to earlier generations of children being taught to duck and cover in the event of nuclear war. Yes, doubters and nay-sayers and rationalists will say we'd be better off controlling guns or nuclear arsenals, but since that ain't gonna happen, something may sometimes be better than nothing at all, even if that something isn't all that good.
I agree with concerned that your situation and one where an active shooter in a school are radically different scenarios. I still would not like to be around when Billy-Bob thinks he can finally live out his ammosexual fantasies.
BTW do not underestimate the effect that even a 20kg primary school kid can have with a kick to the knee.
My best example for the fallacy of the "good guy with a penis exte… erm… gun" theory was the CTC shooting. I know people who shop there who are licensed for CC—therefore there many others who would be there as well—not **ONE** person seemed have drawn their weapon and squeezed off a round. Instead he died of self-inflicted injuries. So where were all these Ramboes?
Elementary school teachers: already responsible for overseeing the health, safety, dietary fitness, cultural integration, moral indoctrination, and oh yeah EDUCATION of a new horde of screaming bastards every year; now ALSO responsible for rallying those kids into suicide charges against lunatic assholes with assault rifles.
All for under $35,000 a year!
At the Giffords and Oregon mall shootings there were Ccw carriers who did not draw exactly from the concerns you raise here: confusion of LEO and uncertainty about how to target the correct person and not an innocent. The only responsible gun owners I can ever think of.
Would a man of darker-hued complexion want to pull out his gun in such a scenario? I would be hesitant, because there's little reason to think I could take out anyone doing harm in the moment. But a black guy? Or a dark-skinned Latino? Fuck no, I'd become the one whose entire family gets smeared on Fox and CNN after I'm dead from heroic bystanders or the police action.
There was a responsible gun owner at the Gabrielle Giffords mass shooting. He chose not to draw his weapon because he didn't see the opportunity to do anything useful. He ended up helping tackle the asshole rather than shooting into a crowd.
Emerson Dameron says:
You're giving our suburban Dirty Harrys too much credit, again.
You didn't even mention what will happen when the local Keystone Kops show up and see a pile of corpses and dozens of maniacal gunmen.
But you could be the new Tarantino.
J. Dryden says:
The scenarios spun by Wayne La Pierre and those pundits and elected officials who deposit checks with the NRA watermark all inspire me to ask them one question:
"You DO know that this isn't the movies, right?"
The outcomes they describe of The Good Guy With A Gun are only achievable in which the fictional rules of movies/television apply: Visibly Obvious Bad Guys in matching outfits, a lack of stray fire, an immediate killshot, an absence of panic/adrenaline, and so on.
Real life isn't clean. Real gunfire isn't straight, and real targets move and bleed and scream. And even when you're in the right–ask police officers and soldiers–killing or maiming another person, no matter how much he deserves it, often fucks you up for life. You don't toss off a quip and move on to the next bad guy.
Yet, given the "problem solved" attitude of the gun lobby and their representatives, this is either something they do not know, or assume that we are stupid enough not to know.
This was a dumb idea when Megan McArdle came up with it, and it's even dumber that someone apparently took it seriously. Does anyone really think the kids in Sandy Hook – 5-7 years old – could have fought back effectively, even if they were drilled? Has anyone ever seen a grade school Xmas pageant?
This carries absurdity to a new level. I'm stunned that adults, any adults, would even consider such a thing as arming children. Armed adults in schools are at best iffy when it comes to this kind of thing. Kids are indiscriminate. They don't make choices. They'd shoot at anything–teachers, or kids in the next room. One thing to remember is that unless one is very lucky the shooter will keep coming even when hit. There isn't enough time to aim at someone's head and they won't be standing still for you. It's not like the old west. It's damned hard to kill somebody quickly with a gun. The one hit isn't going to grab his chest and fall off his horse. Guns are inefficient and damned hard to use. I know, it supposedly gives one a chance but not as much of one as getting the hell away, even the attempt is worth it.
We had a lot of guns around when I was a kid. I had some fun with them but I learned just how stupid I was in time to not make them a hobby. For me, it wasn't a good idea.
If things come to this, it's time to move on. There would be no reason to attend school. It would be better join home schooling nitwits and learn how to outgun your friends and neighbors.
WTF is the matter with us?
Just finished reading Chris Kyle's autobiography. He was the Navy Seal sniper who is credited with more kills than any other US military sniper. After his military service he started a company to train LEO and others in things he'd learned the hard way in Iraq. He was also helping other vets return to normalcy by bringing them out to his firing range. One of those troubled vets turned his weapon on Chris. If a guy like Kyle can be gunned down anyone can be. We need more funding for mental health issues, not more guns.
c u n d gulag says:
Teaching children to attack?
"Kill, Son! KILL!!!
We've officially left the gravitational pull of reason and ration.
So, yeah, wadda we do to reduce the plague of nobodies imagining that owning guns makes them somebodies?
What steps to we take to rid ourselves of danger from fearful small penises?
I still think choking off the ammo supply has merit. Collect all the guns you want, you just can't fire them for less than $10,000.
Major Kong says:
My Air Force anti-terrorism training taught that in general it's best to keep low and stay out of the way of the security forces responding to the terrorists.
Otherwise you might get mistaken for a bad guy and shot.
And by "keep low" they meant – take the buttons off your shirt so they don't get in the way.
All right, hunter relatives, you can get a license to own ammo for hunting.
With purchase limitations – you don't get to buy 100 boxes of 22 shells just to bag a couple of ptarmigan.
Recently I helped set up a big household sale. The man who lived there was gun collector and a reloader. Reloading shotgun shells and even bullets has become very big. He had quite a home workshop for the purpose. I suppose it's like breath play when it comes to ammosexual satisfaction.
Controlling ammo is a good idea of course but reloaders would make sure it wasn't impossible to obtain.
Calm down. The video refers to children "as young as 14," which is high school age. Also, the high schoolers are armed with…school supplies! I once had the peculiar experience of being a 5th grade classroom volunteer during a lockdown drill, which involved lowering a blind on the window in the door, and crouching on the floor near an inside wall. If an armed nut made it into such a classroom, the kids would be helpless, except the ones protected by 5th grade meat shields. Any suggestions?
Training kids to respond with unthinking aggression towards sinister (defined as the Other) strangers will really serve them well later in life. Also, what makes them think that kids won't act on that training in other scenarios? Because kids are so good at critical thinking.
Since these bloodbaths began, "more guns" has been the rant. I'm unimpressed.
Major Kong says:
I don't reload ammunition, but the reason some people reload their own is that it's much cheaper.
For example: I have a couple of Single-Action Colt replicas that take ".45 Long Colt" which goes back to the cowboy days. The stuff is insanely expensive ($1 per round) compared to something like 9mm or .45 Auto.
If I shot it any quantity (I don't) it would make sense for me to reload it.
Totoro, it's exceedingly rare that famous people win libel suits. So the fact that Jesse Ventura did, against Kyle (actually his estate), is a sign that the book is more a pack of lies than most memoirs, possibly approaching the James Frey level.
I am a reloader, and can assure you that I derive no sexual pleasure "breath play" from it, in fact for the most part it is boring.
As Major Kong says, reloading makes ammunition much cheaper. It also allows you to make ammunition custom for your rifle. There are specs for every caliber, but the actual measurements of the chamber vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. And reloading allows you to adjust to those variations, thus more accurate ammunition for the specific rifle.
Now, as a hunter, I would even suggest that it is ethical to have the most accurate rifle as you can so that your shots do the intended thing.
As for the cost of ammunition, this is where things get interesting. After Obama won the first election, the NRA pounded the "OH SHIT! THE BAD MAN IS GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS!" which caused the crazies to make a run on ammunition, driving the price of ammunition up. Like seriously up.
It is clear that the NRA and gun/ammunition manufacturers make a coordinated marketing campaign, and I would bet they actually prefer a Democratic president for the purpose of fear mongering.
I am pretty sure that gun/ammo manufacturers benefit more from the 'threat' of gun control than if there was no gun control at all.
As for kids, I am not sure if kids fighting back against a school shooter is more disturbing than the fact that we are talking about what to do in case of school shooting.
We clearly need to limit the guns available in public.
The problem is — whether in a mass shooting or in a private home — the good guy with a gun doesn't know who the bad guy is. The bad guy with a gun knows exactly who the bad guy is — and he knows that anyone else is his enemy.
The good guy with a gun — unless he's a psychopath — will hesitate. It's not easy to point a gun at another human being and shoot. The bad guy will have no such hesitation. He will just fire. So, that moment's hesitation will cost the good guy his life.
Suppose you're in your upstairs bedroom. You hear a noise downstairs. You grab your gun and go down. Are you just going to fire into the dark or come around the corner with your gun blazing – maybe wiping out your kid looking for a snack or your neighbor who came home drunk and wandered into the wrong house? No, like most people, you will say "Who's there?" The bad guy knows who's there and he knows you're not there to help him.
I heard one of the survivors of the Bataclan massacre describing the scene. When the shooting started, everyone hit the floor. Anyone who even put his/her head up was shot. What good is a gun going to you in that situation. You have dark theater with shooters dressed in black. Even if you had a gun, by the time you got up and got a good bead on a terrorist, assuming you could see him, you would be dead. Assuming anything else is a fantasy. This isn't the movies.
@Concerned. The problem is that even if the school is on lockdown, someone with a gun may not necessarily be the bad guy. It could be an off-duty cop who got into the school before it was locked down. It could be a parent who happened to be carrying and is trying to protect his kid. It could be the new janitor who was armed.
Again, the good guys can't tell the good guys from the bad guys. The bad guys know exactly who's who.
I have a 6 year old, and I know exactly how he would respond to an active shooter. He would freak the fuck out because he's a child and many children are nervous of the dark or loud noises or even people saying hello to them.
The thought that you should expect a teacher to turn a bunch of schoolchildren into guerilla warriors is so fucking stupid that I have to believe that anyone suggesting it has never met a child before.
We went through the training a few years ago. I teach at an engineering college. It's full of achievers, highly stressful, mostly male and in a hunting state. We were taught to turn out the lights, block the door the best we could, and if someone entered the room to throw our laptops/textbooks at the assailant. What sucks is that every single door on campus has a big ol' window in it so turning out the lights isn't going to hide the fact that there's a classroom full of people just sitting like ducks. I carry pepper spray, I know it won't do much good (my state won't let you buy the good stuff, you can only buy that which is less potent than what the cops carry), but it might buy my students some time to escape while I'm getting gunned down.
The people that advocate these sorts of programs for schoolchildren have to be the only people on the planet who look at photos of child soldiers in Africa and think, "we gotta get in on that action".
Dr. Mac says:
Exactly! On the day of the Umpqua Community College shooting, a witness who was being interviewed by a TV reporter admitted to being armed as were others on campus that day (it is not a gun-free zone). When asked if he thought about intervening, he said no…. he did not want to be in the area with a drawn gun when SWAT showed up because he knew that they could not distinguish him from the actual shooter. Smart dude. Stupid NRA.
Paddyrollers. White people want this nation to be an armed camp to keep down people of color, and they'll embrace any approach necessary to making that happen.
el mago says:
Middle school kids attacking an armed assailant. . .the idea would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. (Ever taught middle school?) That this kind of scenario is formulated then seriously discussed and debated is a symptom of the kind of mental illness stalking contemporary U.S. culture.
This happened in my town, a few blocks from my home. Note what happened to the guy who rode in to save the day, and the movie series he was watching that night:
@SunilR—Wow. And he'd do it again, except he'd make sure he didn't get shot. Brilliant, why has no one thought of that before?
I've said it before, but the only "civilian" I know that I would trust to be a "good guy with a gun" is my cousin who was a Navy SEAL and spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had shots fired at him in anger.
The biggest problem with the "more guns make us safe" logic is that the only place I know where everyone had a gun is the hood, and last time I checked, it is usually the least safe.
But hey, truth and politics, amirite?
I'm reminded of the ping pong ball-mouse trap chain reaction when I consider a society where every "good guy" is armed, and everyone thinks they're the good guy.
JustRuss: Isn't that a great plan? My assistant knows someone who lived nearby and grabbed his rifle and headed out; then he realized the police would likely shoot him and went back inside.
Gil More says:
The same folks who want to have their kids teachers armed want to cut their pay, reduce their pension and break their union.
Our Democratic President has been the best thing for ammo companies. Shelves still aren't fully stocked and price are 300% to 400% higher.
"Rolling your own" is a boring ballet of set moves repeated over and over to save money, increase accuracy and stay out of your wife's hair. Like ammo, many of the components for reloading are occasionally tough to get. The thought of making ammo tougher to get or super expensive is fallacy. That horse is out of the barn. Prior shortages has most sportsman having enough on hand at home for a half dozen trips to the range, where you used to be able to stop on the way.
The scenario of multiple armed civilians, shooting multiple armed terrorists who then are shot by and the shoot at police / SWAT is antithetical of the ammosexual Rambo fantasies that are used as an example. No one in Arizona needs a license or training for concealed or open carry.
The only incident close to your representation is the Twin Peaks Biker's shootout in Waco, TX. A roadhouse joint has a Bikers Day and a handful of gangs show up. What could go wrong ? 9 killed, 18 injured, 320 weapons found and 192 initial arrests. Guns don't kill people stupid saloon promotions do.
Of course, the classrooms would remain locked until the school was secured, with explicit instructions given to the teachers not to open the door for anything less than platoon of SWAT people (or something). Anyone in the hallway, anyone trying to force their way into a classroom, would get treated like the bad guy.
Safety Man! says:
To Ed and others;
When I go home to rural GA I absolutely carry a weapon, because once years ago people I care about had a run-in with wild dogs and if the pack had fancied their chances a bit more bad things may have happened. I have also had neighbors chased by bears, and one fateful night a psychopath tried to ram a car off the road with his pickup. As others have said, it's not a perfect world and stuff happens. In saner times even red states banned guns from concerts, churches, and bars, and if you wanted to carry you had to do it concealed so as not to freak everybody the heck out after getting a permit that included a fingerprint database check. We also had to take a state gun safety course before we were allowed to stomp around the woods armed and unsupervised. I have no idea why any of these things are now controversial. Ed, you and I disagree on some things about guns, but you don't have to be a nut-job to carry one, especially in sparsely populated areas.
@ Concerned — that would be the fantasy. Real life never works out as well spas the fantasy does. All the Titanic had to do was close all the watertight doors and it would still be alive today.
Gil More says:
"Anyone in the hallway, anyone trying to force their way into a classroom, would get treated like the bad guy.
Problem solved. "
Like the random parent picking up their sick kid, the substitute teacher who was never briefed on emergency procedures and the landscaper who comes in to receive himself.
Sour Kraut says:
@Skipper–Nitpick: as I understand it, Titanic did close its watertight doors, but since they didn't go any higher than the ship's "E" deck, and 5 of its forward compartments were breached, there was no chance of avoiding disaster. For all the issues with James Cameron's magnum opus, it's supposedly very technically accurate in its depiction of the sinking. Although a Nat Geo article I read speculated that if Titanic had rammed the iceberg head-on, it might have damaged only 4 compartments and stayed afloat.
I have no idea why any of these things are now controversial.
SafetyMan, you're kidding, right? You really don't have a clue? Who coulda knowed?
Let's take a wild guess why this situation exists
Male feelings of powerlessness is at the top of my list of ideas, especially white males.
And the gun industry that rakes in bazillions by providing the drug. They differ from organized crime only to the extent of having legal cover for their drug dealing.
So those who like to keep a gun or two to shoot moose or squirrels are now outnumbered by hordes who like to keep a gun on hand so they can shoot & kill the waitress who asks them to smoke outside, or go terrorize the local Planned Parenthood clinic.
And you really cannot even guess how we got here?
Safety Man! says:
Fear-mongering, yes. But by and large in the localities I'm familiar with it's the same white males in power, more or less. I'm merely suggesting that when you talk gun control, lead with things that used to be considered standard, even in the Deep South, and ask why it was agreeable then, but not now. Maybe you're get an intelligible response, hope springs eternal.
Side note on the NRA, the organization used to be much more involved with gun safety, firearms instructors, and even kid safety programs (i.e. Eddie Eagle: stop/ don't touch the gun/ leave the area/ tell an adult). When people talk about how awful the organization is, some rural people are scratching their heads wondering why they're against the group who taught their kids not to play with guns. I've seen some recognition that they're gun industry shills, but that's an angle that's been lacking in the debate.
@Skipper & Gil More
I don't think either of you is trying very hard to imagine how a school gets locked down, or what it looks like once it does.
Well put. I've often wondered (not really) why this shit escapes people. Another scenario I've thought up was, imagine you're sitting in a university library and see someone walking across the parking lot with a gun, to enter the building you're in. Back when weapons weren't allowed on campus, one could reasonably call the campus police who would arrive before or shortly after all hell breaks loose. Now, on a disarmed campus, you have to wait until after a shooter starts opening fire before you can tell if they are intending to massacre people or if they're just some fucking idiot making a political statement. Replace university with Taco Bell, etc. The point is these nutbars are so obsessed with the fantasy in which they are heroes in an emergency situation that they're taking away everyone's ability to preempt an emergency before it arises.
armed, not disarmed. Sorry
My brother was a security aide in the public schools in our city. They used to routinely run drills regarding shooters on campus. He said that just in those drills it was pandemonium and pretty much impossible to control the situation. So imagine if there is a real shooter with real rounds and real blood spattering the walls.
HeidiB: I do like the term "5th grade meat shields," though. It would make a good band name.
I like that most of the commenter here aren't fuckingunzloonzmaroonz…still, I can always count on seeing one or two commenter who are,"NEW" to the blog.
Gil More says:
That was the way I envisioned a lockdown to happen in a school. Shooter on campus or in school. Confusion, fear and maybe an alarm sounding.
One or two people who were not 100% dialed into the plan, in the outside hall looking into a classroom. Or victim 1 & 2, your choice.
S M McBean says:
For those who missed this from the "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" dept:
@ Concerned. So you're saying we retrofit all schools with steel doors and impenetrable deadbolts? Kind of like bank vaults? Good luck getting that tax-raising bill passed. Right now, any school I've been in has doors that can be breached with a quick blast from an automatic rifle — or a swift kick. The second blast would discourage the advancing second-graders from their futile assault. The teacher, trying to figure out where they had hidden the ammo for their gun, would be the next to go. It's your basic shooting gallery. Not a deterrent — just another challenge. And a fantasy for the Rambo wannabes.
Well, we've just had our weekly shooting, and it took place at an institution which gave its employees active shooter training.
"It's not like we already have a massive problem in our society with people considering remote proximity to a black male or a Mooslem-lookin' fella a legitimate Threat."
Can someone please explain to me how the correct pronunciation of "Muslim" became a way to make fun of conservatives? I see this all the time- "oh, oh, watch out- MOOSLIMS gonna gitcha! I bet you think Obama's a secret Mooooooslim too, right?"
It's just a little weird to me that so many people have decided that the best way to fight anti-Muslim bigotry is to, you know, make fun of the way Muslims pronounce the word "Muslim."
Anonhole @ 9:37:
In the event most gunzloonfucktardlicanteabaggers don't use either for if they're with their idiot friends.
democommie, did you even read your own link before posting?
Let me quote that quora page you cited:
"Muhammad Areez, Preteen, Intellect, Reformer & a proud Pakistani!
It should be pronounced as Muslim rather than Muzlim. Muzlim can offend Muslims as it means a tyrant in Arabic, Urdu, Persian and other related languages. Muslim is the correct term."
"Waleed Kadous, Student of Islam
4.4k Views • Waleed has 470+ answers and 29 endorsements in Islam.
The pronunciation preferred by Muslims and also consistent with the Arabic pronunciation is the UK style hard "s" (not "z").
In my opinion, this makes the hard "s" correct.
This is consistent with the Arabic word مسلم — i.e. someone who submits or surrenders. The problem is that if you say it with the "z" style sound, it sounds like the Arabic word مظلم — muthlim — which means oppressor or tyrant.
So as not to offend muslims, I would suggest sticking with the hard "s"."
So let me get this straight, democommie-
I say that it's weird that a lot of people claim to be pro-Muslim, but try to demonstrate that by making fun of the correct pronunciation ("Mooslim") that Muslims say they prefer.
And your response is to call me an asshole, and try to prove me wrong by citing a webpage on which Muslims say that "Mooslim" is the correct pronunciation, and "Muzlim" is offensive.
You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually LISTEN to what Muslims have to say. I actually work with Muslims, and they correct people like you who say offensive things like "Muzlim." And I take them seriously when they say that.
You, on the other hand, don't give a shit what Muslims have to say. To you, they're just props for winning an argument- so you make a fool of yourself citing a webpage that proves me right.
I mean, it's ludicrous. All I've been doing is to say, hey, look, here's what Muslims have to say. And for that, you call me an asshole and a bigot.
Best pack and play says:
Hi there, simply changed into alert to your weblog through Google, and located that it's really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I'll be grateful when you continue this in future. Lots of other folks will probably be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!
It would all be simpler, and much more manageable if everyone would follow the protocols of the late-30s western serials: Bad guys wear black hats; good guys wear white hats.
I feel like slapping someone every time I hear that 'the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun', particularly if they have previously advocated for open carry.
Consider that James Eagan Holmes, the Aurora theatre shooter (killed 12 and wounded 70) would have been considered a good guy who was just exercising his open carry rights if stopped just two minutes before he opened fire. If the police pulled him over for a traffic violation ten minutes before he started murdering people chances are he would have been considered just another gun enthusiast. If he was hassled in any serious way the pro-gun people would have raised a stink over violation of his second amendment rights and taken up a collection for his legal defence.
Unless people are going to abide by the black-hat rule, lots of luck making that happen, telling good from bad is just too hard.
Comments are closed.