Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LSUMASTERMIND, Dec 14, 2012.
Well, it would really depend on the scale.
Eyewitnesses, photo's and audio tapes show that the soldiers dropped to their knees in unison and firing began in unison suggesting that they were under control of their officer. It's a reminder of why we have a Posse Comitatus law. Soldiers are trained to make war and are poor law enforcement officers. My point to gyver is that American soldiers will follow orders. The Kent State atrocity was a wake-up call to government and the military about not getting soldiers involved in domestic law enforcement incidents.
It is apparent you are ignorant of safety principles.
Think of a scale Martin. Load all your risks on one side. The scale will obviously tip under its weight. Now add all your your risk mitigating practices and actions. The scale will balance out if you have good common since and even tip in your favor.
Very simple principle.
I like to go back you an earlier quote by you because you inadvertently agree with what I just said.
"I am regularly wasted in terrible parts of Brooklyn. People don't mess with me. I am youngish and fit and streetwise. I always know where I am going or look like I do."
In your mind above, you mitigating factors to combat the RISK of being in TERRIBLE parts of Brooklyn are:
However, you do not apply these sample principles you live your life by to gun owners simply because you are ignorant of guns.
Merry Christmas Martin.
I was in Nam when the tragedy occurred so I didn't learn what happened in any detail until I returned to the States roughly three months after it happened.
Was an officer in the group that opened fire? If there was, I would be surprised if he was anything more than a Lt. More importantly was a Senior NCO in the group? If one was present, he should have been court martialed imo. Just a guess, but I doubt that they were unable to communicate with anyone in the chain of command line very effectively. At best they had walkie talkie's and with the crowd noise I would guess that it was virtually impossible to hear anything.
Kent State, May 4, 1970: America Kills Its Children
Kent State, May 4, 1970: ... But the Guardsmen--even the one who confessed to shooting an unarmed demonstrator giving him the finger--were not deemed unfit to serve ...
The soldiers heard another shoot so they started shooting. This article sounds like what's going on today. A president with media support and not being held accountable for his actions. And the general population blindly following him because of what they're lead to believe by the media.
There were conflicting reports among the soldiers. Some say they were given an order, others say that they fired when others fired. Some admitted targeting students. It is a matter of record which soldiers fired their weapons and which ones did not. The officer in charge did not discharge his pistol and testified that no order was given. However a senior NCO certainly discharged his pistol. They were just poorly led and disciplined, had been given live ammo, had no training in crowd control, and they panicked.
They may have been confused because they were wearing gas masks limiting their vision but they were not under radio control. It was a tight group of 77 advancing shoulder to shoulder with an officer who could communicate verbally with his entire command. The students that they shot at were not a mob and were widely dispersed, the average distance from the soldiers to shot victims was over 300 feet. The closest of the 13 victims was 81 feet. The soldiers were never attacked. There had been some rock throwing earlier, but the tear gas had backed off and dispersed the crowd which was no threat at the time of the shooting.
8 guardsmen were indicted but a federal judge controversially threw out all charges. No guardsmen were ever disciplined. None of the 24 student protesters indicted were ever tried either.
The Presidents Commission that investigated the murders concluded that . . .
"the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable.
Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified. Apparently, no order to fire was given, and there was inadequate fire control discipline on Blanket Hill. The Kent State tragedy must mark the last time that, as a matter of course, loaded rifles are issued to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators."
Thanks for that info red. Thankfully lessons were learned and that type of tragedy has never been repeated.
You can say you are a responsible gun owner all you want. You won't end up defending your family because crime doesn't even generally happen that way. You house is burgled while you are away, and your violent disputes involve people you know, and guns only make them worse. A scenario whereby a gun prevents harm rather than causes it is very rare. In practice the gun is a net danger you you and everyone around, and I don't care how responsible you are.
Again, I am not arguing for gun control.
Owning a car is a net danger as well. Same with a stove. I am not arguing to ban these things. I am saying they don't make your life safer. Guns do not make you safer. I dunno how many times i have to say it.
Do you have data that supports gun owners purchased a gun for safety? Or are you pulling this from your ass?
I also ask you to show real data that supports owning a gun is inherently "un safe". It's a risk that can be mitigated more easily than the risk of driving a car.