I have no quarrel with what he said, but I do have a quarrel with something he didn't say.
As he kept reiterating that we are at war and he kept calling cops warriors, he didn't address the fact that for most cops, they prefer the war to be against us, the non-threatening citizen. Somewhere in the transfer of the concept, it has come to mean Us(cops)v. Them(everybody else).
The dynamic employed is very much akin to his description of a killer looking for a "soft target".
Since most of us are not intent on causing harm and further, most of us enjoy a favorable view of police, we are that "soft target". The converse of this is the reaction we see when they are faced with a hard target. We see them hiding and staying outside until it is over.
That is not a warrior.
I don't know exactly what can be done, because you can't legislate courage. But you can debadge cops who exhibit citizen hostile tendencies, such as the moron who took a man to jail for a turn signal infraction. There is no doubt in my mind, he would appropriate the largest tree for himself until the shooting was over in a situation as described by Grossman. Get rid of enough of these types and the morale, moral fiber and level of courage of the entire system will improve and possibly draw people who look at the work as service, not coronation.
Grossman is an opportunist. His theories have been rigorously debunked in the past. I guess has already spent all of the money from being anti-gun and opposing violent video games, so he needs a new market.
Hannity acted as an apologist for Giuliani specifically, and Republicans and especially Bush--some of his criticisms notwithstanding. O'Reilly has supported the "assault weapon" ban.
They pass themselves off as conservatives, and more importantly, the rest of the media and most of the populace considers them that, meaning those who follow them with that expectation will not achieve fruitful results.
Two concrete examples that have been discussed in gun circles and can be verified. I'd like to see the same level of explanation for Grossman.
Everything you say is true, except O'Reilly specifically denies being conservative. He claims he's "independent," which is like being a little bit pregnant. In this world, if you don't choose sides, one will be chosen for you, and everyone else, just as you say, will act on that assumption.
Tried another system, it's too slow also. Did he mention "gun free zones" aka "spree killer free fire zoned" Or "no obligation" or "setting up a perimeter"? If not I'm not sure I want to pay to see it. FYI, his etymology is not top notch, but I can't think for the Greek for "kill" (to coordinate with the "ology" ) cycjec
I have no quarrel with what he said, but I do have a quarrel with something he didn't say.
ReplyDeleteAs he kept reiterating that we are at war and he kept calling cops warriors, he didn't address the fact that for most cops, they prefer the war to be against us, the non-threatening citizen. Somewhere in the transfer of the concept, it has come to mean Us(cops)v. Them(everybody else).
The dynamic employed is very much akin to his description of a killer looking for a "soft target".
Since most of us are not intent on causing harm and further, most of us enjoy a favorable view of police, we are that "soft target". The converse of this is the reaction we see when they are faced with a hard target. We see them hiding and staying outside until it is over.
That is not a warrior.
I don't know exactly what can be done, because you can't legislate courage. But you can debadge cops who exhibit citizen hostile tendencies, such as the moron who took a man to jail for a turn signal infraction. There is no doubt in my mind, he would appropriate the largest tree for himself until the shooting was over in a situation as described by Grossman. Get rid of enough of these types and the morale, moral fiber and level of courage of the entire system will improve and possibly draw people who look at the work as service, not coronation.
Grossman is an opportunist. His theories have been rigorously debunked in the past. I guess has already spent all of the money from being anti-gun and opposing violent video games, so he needs a new market.
ReplyDeleteMostlyGenius: Please validate those charges. What theories have been debunked and by whom? Where has he established himself as anti-gun?
ReplyDeleteNot sayin' you're wrong, just sayin' things that can affect a man's reputation need to be demonstrated, not just said. It's only right.
Not sayin' you're wrong, just sayin' things that can affect a man's reputation need to be demonstrated, not just said. It's only right.
ReplyDeleteNot sayin' you're wrong, David, but you did call O'Reilly and Hannity sterile queen bee frauds without validating the charge.
And for the record, I'm neither a fan nor a critic of Fox News.
Hannity acted as an apologist for Giuliani specifically, and Republicans and especially Bush--some of his criticisms notwithstanding. O'Reilly has supported the "assault weapon" ban.
ReplyDeleteThey pass themselves off as conservatives, and more importantly, the rest of the media and most of the populace considers them that, meaning those who follow them with that expectation will not achieve fruitful results.
Two concrete examples that have been discussed in gun circles and can be verified. I'd like to see the same level of explanation for Grossman.
Everything you say is true, except O'Reilly specifically denies being conservative. He claims he's "independent," which is like being a little bit pregnant. In this world, if you don't choose sides, one will be chosen for you, and everyone else, just as you say, will act on that assumption.
ReplyDeleteTried another system, it's too slow
ReplyDeletealso. Did he mention "gun free zones" aka "spree killer free fire
zoned" Or "no obligation" or "setting up a perimeter"? If not
I'm not sure I want to pay to see it. FYI, his etymology is not top
notch, but I can't think for the Greek for "kill" (to coordinate with the "ology" ) cycjec