Amish School Shooting

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm not too happy that Russia has lots of nukes left, but I'm very happy we still have a bunch. For the same reason I keep firearms, I want the U.S. to keep it's nukes.

I want all enemies of the U.S. to know that their nation and infrastructure can be vaporized in short order if worse comes to worse.

And I have no problem whatsoever with the historical fact that the United States is the only nation in the history of the Earth that has waged atomic warfare on an opponent. In fact, I'm happy that other nations know that. I don't want them to see a paper tiger.

...

I've got 'em, I'll keep 'em, and that's just the way it's gonna be.

You trust your government with nukes, but you don't trust your government not to attack you so you insist on guns?

I'm sorry, but there is a huge paradox here.

I doubt Bush or Clinton will use a nuclear weapon on Palmer, Alaska for any reason. Why? It's a poor investment. Why use such an economically and politically expensive weapon to vaporize a boreal forest with a few yahoos in it? Hell, they didn't even use one in Tora Bora to kill Taliban.

Yes, I trust my government to use nuclear weapons at the appropriate time and against an appropriate foe. They've already done it.

I damned sure trust them more than I trust the Russian, Iranian, Chinese, North Korean, etc governments.

And, finally, I own and use guns for several reasons. Lowest on the list is to fight my own government. Highest on the list is to put moose meat in the freezer. Somewhere in the middle is to convince Joe Scumbag to leave me and mine alone.

 

[steverino]

You trust your government with nukes, but you don't trust your government not to attack you so you insist on guns?

I'm sorry, but there is a huge paradox here.

Huntster can fight his own battles, (literally) but I must back him up here. There is no paradox in both arming oneself personally, and also having a strong government willing to protect her people. In America one is free to personally protect his family and property while enjoying the hard-fought luxury of living in a super-power that is envyed by its allies and feared by its enemies.

 

[CFLarsen]

I doubt Bush or Clinton will use a nuclear weapon on Palmer, Alaska for any reason. Why? It's a poor investment. Why use such an economically and politically expensive weapon to vaporize a boreal forest with a few yahoos in it? Hell, they didn't even use one in Tora Bora to kill Taliban.

Yes, I trust my government to use nuclear weapons at the appropriate time and against an appropriate foe. They've already done it.

I damned sure trust them more than I trust the Russian, Iranian, Chinese, North Korean, etc governments.

And, finally, I own and use guns for several reasons. Lowest on the list is to fight my own government. Highest on the list is to put moose meat in the freezer. Somewhere in the middle is to convince Joe Scumbag to leave me and mine alone.

This doesn't answer the question:

Why do you trust your government with nukes, but you don't trust them enough not to attack you, so you won't need guns?

Huntster can fight his own battles, (literally) but I must back him up here. There is no paradox in both arming oneself personally, and also having a strong government willing to protect her people. In America one is free to personally protect his family and property while enjoying the hard-fought luxury of living in a super-power that is envyed by its allies and feared by its enemies.

Sure there is a paradox: Either you trust your government, or you don't.

Your government is out to get you, so you better have guns. But, at the same time, you trust your government with nukes.

Sorry. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Dave1001]

It appears that it can happen even here.

It's still at this time breaking news, but it appears that several have been killed.

I had no idea that the Amish could use gunpowder.

 

[steverino]

This doesn't answer the question:

Why do you trust your government with nukes, but you don't trust them enough not to attack you, so you won't need guns?



Sure there is a paradox: Either you trust your government, or you don't.

Your government is out to get you, so you better have guns. But, at the same time, you trust your government with nukes.

Sorry. It just doesn't make sense.

Let's try this: An angry mob knocks on my door in the middle of the night with torches, and wants to lynch me because I am different than that group. My government has nukes. Therefore...I am safe and don't need a gun? What?

 

[coalesce]

Motive and opportunity? Why are these particularly American?

I don't feel they're particularly American. I use these two to explain very basic motives for crime being committed in all parts of the world, regardless of the perception of their respective cultures to the outside world.

Michael

 

[Liken]

Considering that one of the posters here, Dr. Imago, was directly involved in the medical response to this terrible story, I don't particularly want to thrust this thread in the direction of skeptictical cynicism. My heart goes out to all the innocent young victims, their families and authorities of all kinds who responded to the situation.

However, it seems to have been incorrectly concluded early in this thread (on page two) that all available technological methods were used to save the lives of the children involved (unless I missed something later in the thread in which case I apologize). From what I can recall, unfortunately, that wasn't the case at all according to at least some evidence.

In an October 3 interview shortly after the event, Police Commissioner Col. Jeffrey Miller was asked by Soledad O'brien about the state response to this horriffic shooting. He said,

"It was very difficult. I mean obviously we want to be sensitive and we are sensitive to the Amish culture community and their religion. Um, Unfortunately they don't fly so we weren't able to fly them to the hospitals [...]in some cases the amish..uh...we arranged for vans to take them to hospitals and in some cases they were at the wrong hospitals..."

[note: I don't know for what reason the "wrong" hospitals has to do with the transport issue, it may be unrelated]

Naturally, I was shocked and not shocked by this response. If the statement is indeed correct (please correct me if not) I think at least part of the tragedy of this story will be overlooked by the skeptic community.

Again, assuming that Col. Miller's coments are correct, there will certainly be those who disagree with and be offended by the suggestion that this case warrents closer inspection of some sort. But in this case, like many others in which medicine and religious belief are at odds (the recent case of Starchild Cherrix comes to mind), it may not be appropriate to place blame directly on the beliefs of the community involved...but we should at least get the facts straight.

Perhaps someone directly involved can point out the role, if any, religious belief might have had at the end of that terrible day. I would appreciate it. I'm hoping I'm wrong about this, but I'd like to know what really happened. You have my condolences Dr. Imago.

Thanks,
Liken

 

[Darat]

....snip...


Again, assuming that Col. Miller's coments are correct, there will certainly be those who disagree with and be offended by the suggestion that this case warrents closer inspection of some sort. But in this case, like many others in which medicine and religious belief are at odds (the recent case of Starchild Cherrix comes to mind), it may not be appropriate to place blame directly on the beliefs of the community involved...but we should at least get the facts straight.

Perhaps someone directly involved can point out the role, if any, religious belief might have had at the end of that terrible day. I would appreciate it. I'm hoping I'm wrong about this, but I'd like to know what really happened. You have my condolences Dr. Imago.

Thanks,
Liken

Isn't he referring to the relatives of the children? In other words they couldn't always get them to the hospitals(?) that were treating their children because of their religious beliefs.

 

[Babylon Sister]

Isn't he referring to the relatives of the children? In other words they couldn't always get them to the hospitals(?) that were treating their children because of their religious beliefs.

Yes. The reference is to parents and families, not victims.

 

[Liken]

thank you.