Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:44:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
456 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > The police could not move in on Randy whats-his-name for weeks/months as
> > there were children were there - that is why they held off. Likewise with
> > Waco, if no children were there, I think the "Feds" would have moved much
> > sooner. Just like Saddam, both these groups used kids to protect their
> position.
>
> You're raving. The Weavers didn't hold off the agents for any real time, and
> at Mt.Carmel,
They had them under surveillance for weeks - as they could not make a raid
due to the kids. RW and his son bumped into a couple of officials/feds/cops
maintaining the surveillance equipment - that is how it flared up (ie RW son
& dog was shot in an exchange of fire).
> they didn't storm the Branch Davidians because they didn't want
> to die. If your logic were correct, then why did they decide to assault the
> Weavers when kids were present and why didn't they assault the Branch Davidians
> as soon as the kids were clear?
Were kids not in waco when was finally raided?
Scott A
>
> Your claim that they were using the children as human shields is the same as
> claiming that _I_ am doing so because I have a child in my house too. That's
> nuts.
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) position. You're raving. The Weavers didn't hold off the agents for any real time, and at Mt.Carmel, they didn't storm the Branch Davidians because they didn't want to die. If your logic were correct, then why did they decide to assault the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
