Written by DHS
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated. Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.
To send a check or money order:
Michael Yon
P O Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880-5553
I will continue to do my part in telling the stories that are not being told. Readers must also do their part by keeping the cash flowing. Cash is essential .
Thank you!
Michael
Order your copy today.
Comments
They ignored the fact, (and I did not have time to stay and bring it up
Another librarian, Devin, who worked here took a job at a local community college library, as did a temp librarian, Alan, who had also worked here. A few years ago, Alan, angry at Devin, his boss, for telling him what to do, came into the workplace, pulled a gun and shot Devin. In that case, it is less likely that a firearm would have saved Devin, but he would have had more chance than he did.
One of the best ways to reduce mass shootings in schools and workplaces would be to permit employees to exercise their God-given, (or natural, if you prefer,) right to carry a means of self defense, a firearm. The murder rate falls where citizens can defend themselves.
Average number of people killed when a Civilian does it - 2.4
The numbers speak for themselves...
Run, hide, fight may be good advice, but telling a person who has undergone the training, passed the class, and paid the fees to obtain a Texas CHL that they can't carry their weapon into a building is fundamentally immoral, unless the building management are willing to also bear ALL of the legal liabilities of failing to protect the license holder from harm by having disarmed them.
I told my students (german school, but lots of kids from e.g. Kosovo, Afghanistan, Kurdistan, etc.) in a heated discussion after the first school shooting ever in Germany: I won't carry an arm to school, even if I would be allowed to do so. With a weapon in hand I'd rather wear my uniform - KFOR, ISAF, OEF or whatever mission. I teach or I wear a weapon to fight - both at the same time doesn't work for me. That is freedom for me. Everything else smells a lot like the old wild, wild west...
Christoph
(Captain, res.)
I live in Texas, where we must take a class and pass a shooting test to obtain a permit to carry a firearm. We should not have to go through all that to exercise our natural rights, but the fact that we do means we know how to use guns safely. We do not want to kill anyone; we only want to be able to defend life when life is threatened. There are over 80 million gun owners in the USA. If we were all the bloodthirsty killers you seem to think we are, then there would be millions of people killed here every year. Yet violent crime is lowest in the areas where honest citizens are armed. We are not the ones who carry out school and workplace shootings.
You live in a nation where, not so long ago, an evil dictator rounded up millions of innocent citizens and had them used for slave labor, and/or killed. Millions slaughtered in a very short time, and he was able to do it because he issued edicts that first took away citizens' firearms. I understand the Germans' desire to stamp out every memory of that time, but it is also valuable history, and you clearly need to learn from it.
So fine, don't carry a firearm. But I would bet you real money that if you found yourself in a workplace shooting situation and you found out that a coworker had a firearm, you would stick to that person like glue, hide behind her, and you'd be happy to let her defend you, because what you consider to be a high moral stand on firearms would, in time of real danger, leave you a helpless coward.
Arms race? That's one hell of a way to rationalize not being responsible for your safety.
Everywhere in the U.S. that licensed concealed carry has been enacted, the murder rates have decreased. Three cities in the U.S. with the absolute highest murder rates are Chicago, Detroit, and Washington DC—ironically cities with the most stringent and draconian and illiberal gun control laws in the nation. As for your uniform (and thank you for your service), the 2nd Amendment wasn't written to protect YOUR right as a uniformed soldier to keep and bear arms. It was written to protect MY right as a citizen to keep and bear arms. Do your research, and then ask yourself, did you take your oath to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC seriously?
I don't care whether or not you choose to exercise a fundamental human right, a right which exists simply because you breath air and are alive, NOT because some bureaucrat gave it to you. But your suggestion that I should not exercise MY right has no more validity in this context than if I were to insist you do not practice your right to free speech—another right you have simply because you are a living human being. That's a silly argument, based in pure emotion, and absent any logic.
It is about the CHOICE to exercise a right, or to not exercise it. The liberal response is to try and abolish any right they don't choose to exercise, primarily motivated out of fear, and a wish that big brother would take care of everything for you. Well, you cannot have freedom without risk. There is no way to separate the two. Here is a brief reference I would recommend for your consumption. Pay special attention to where Germany falls in the represented statistics: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/02/economic-freedom-the-freedom-to-choose/
Have a nice day, and since your reaction is hysteria, I've no use for any further conversation as it would be a giant waste of my time.....except to say, "give everyone a break and get over yourself."
The "Wild West" is not so much a red herring as an utter Straw Man. The so-called "Wild West" starts at Plymouth and Jamestown and continues to the Bering Strait, in the minds of the Euro- and Europhillic-eli te of the Left, as of 1604 or so (Canada seems to have filed for a waiver).
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Jihadi Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why this Jihadi Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Major Hassan, at Texas' Fort Hood
Sat under an Imam who sought no man's good.
To replace Constitution with Sharia Law
By small arms fire and a “Great is Allah!”
By God's grace he was brought down
By an unburqa’d blonde with a badge and a gun.
From every mountain-side, let freedom ring!
Hulloa boys, hulloa boys, God be our King!
(2010, by myself. Share as you please.)
During the "Hide" phase, people are dying.
During the "Fight" phase People are probably dying. So, I think it might be wise to toss out the "Run" and "Hide" phases and immediately have everybody go into the "Fight" mode in these active shooter situations. Some may die, but probably fewer will die of wounds to the back, or while cowering under a desk.
Just a thought...
@whamprod: I gave examples from school because that's what I know quite well and because a school-shooting was mentioned IN the video.
Regarding statistics - well, quite often you can use them for and against a case, you have to look at the details. Take Britain as an example: crime skyrocketed after the government took away pretty much all weapons from its citizens. Not a good idea, I would say. But here we're talking about weapons at home, usually for hunting, self defense or as collectors items (few handguns, more rifles).
Why concealed carry? Because YOU want to protect YOUR rights? What about the rest to the nation? Oh, I see it coming - I'm a liberal, a socialist because I think a little bit about my fellow human beings and not just my EGO? Ok, use YOUR concealed gun. That's YOUR right. But can YOU carry the consequences? Killing a person, maybe even innocent bystanders; someone grabbing YOUR gun to misuse it?
Remember Murphy's Law: Professionals are predictable - the world is full of dangerous amateurs. Active shooter is a police and SWAT team's mission - not yours, not mine.
To believe in that is to accept all of the deaths until the police and/or SWAT show up.
But even worse, it's just plain wrong. Many shootings have been stopped by the "amateurs". Gun's ain't rocket surgery. Yes, good, quality training can lead to good, quality skills with regard to the "professionals" , whomever you might lump into that category, but the same is true of the "amateurs".
I don't understand your quest to leave the fighting to others.
You obviously don't understand. You believe in group rights and group responsibilitie s, seemingly without the individual being responsible unless designated, and certainly without the individual's rights figuring into it at all.
All I can say is, that makes me sad. But it's not convincing.
The right of folks to die until their appointed protectors begin protecting them is not a happy thought to me.
I'll pass, thanks.
You use typical anti-gun rhetoric, creating wild scenarios, such as our guns being taken from us and used on us and others, or wild gunfights in which innocent bystanders are gunned down, without reference to reality. These things DO NOT happen. In the US, where we have more freedom to keep and bear arms than any other nation I can think of, those arms in the hands of honest citizens, and the police, SAVE LIVES.
Pull your self-righteous head out of your holier-than-tho u ass, Christoph. The police and SWAT teams are usually great - God bless them for what they do - but they can't always be there when we need them; I carry a gun because a cop weighs too much, and won't fit in my purse. I have firearms because I have a basic human right to have them. With my fellow firearms owners, I hope and pray that I will never have to raise a gun against another human being. But if another human being raises one against me or a loved one, I'm damn sure going to do my best to shoot first, and to shoot straight. You can cower, whimpering in the corner, until the shooter finds you or until the police show up and manage to get into the building. If I'm around, I'll even let you hide behind my skirts.
The facts, and statistics that bear them out, are clear - armed citizens are the best way to stop a criminal (who is intent on injuring/killin g others) from inflicting massive casualties. If there had been 3 or 4 movie goers with concealed weapons in the Aurora, CO theater, lives would have been saved.
By the way: Of course it's the bad guys who misuse the guns. But do you really want armed librarians and teachers running around in school? Get a guard, install metal detectors, etc. And don't offer people a gun when they open a bank account... (ok, that's irony again, sorry folks)
@Nazi-bashing: May I kindly remind you of the fact that some lawful american citizens killed oh so many Native Americans during the last few hundred years; What if they and the slaves in the south had had the chance to arm themselves properly to defend THEIR GOD_GIVEN RIGHT to LIVE FREE???
As for the Nazi-bashing, (I do hope you aren't Nazi-supporting ,) my main point was that Hitler was able to round up and murder so many millions of citizens, in a very organized, methodical and deliberate way largely because he took firearms away from those citizens first. I do not deny there have been moral atrocities in this nation. The slaves were denied the right to self-defense, and that was wrong. The Native Americans frequently had guns, but they didn't have the numbers. Of course, killing them, unless they attacked first, was also wrong. No reasonable person denies history, wrong or right. But I notice that in your defense of them, you acknowledge exactly what we've been telling you. Guns keep us safe and free.
BTW, I am guessing that English is not your first language, so I'll take it upon myself to make a small correction. (I got my degree in English - I can;t help it.) You are using the word "irony" incorrectly. The word you want in these cases is "sarcasm."
Live and be well.
I assume you are saying this to prove your point. In any way you are wrong.
The German Reichswehr had fighter planes, bombers, high powered rifles, tanks...that's how they could do what they did, not by taking away a few hunting rifles (which has not happened, by the way).
On the gun argument, Christoph is quite right with his points.
And all that thugs will have guns anyway is bull-exctrement . If guns are outlawed and that law is enforced where should they get those guns from, then?
And please don't bring up the comparison with drugs and liquor...you can't really make guns in your backyard or basement, can you? No? Thanks.
Cheers
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
That thugs will have guns anyways is PROVEN, your assertion to the contrary. Guns are outlawed in Mexico, how's that working there?
If banning guns worked, Washington, DC and New York City would be the safest cities in the country. Since 1976, till last year, it was illegal in Washington, DC to own any handguns or to keep any type of gun in your home unlocked and fully assembled. However, Washington, DC was the "murder capital of the United States."
New York City has had severe gun control laws since 1911, yet it also ranks among the most dangerous places in the country. In both cities, violent criminals can easily obtain the most deadly weapons on the streets within minutes.
A national gun ban won't help. With an estimated 220+ million guns now in the US, an unpoliceable 12,000 miles of borders and coastlines, and the world's largest stock of precision machine tools, criminals will always be able to buy, steal, or make guns and ammunition.
A competent backyard mechanic can build a rifle or handgun. Even Afghan peasants, using tools considerably inferior to those in the Sears catalog, have built machine guns capable of firing Soviet AK-47 cartridges. It's not rocket science, it's a 600 year old technology.
Illegal home production of handguns is already a fact of life; a BATF study found that one-fifth of the guns seized by police in Washington, DC were homemade.
The Germans rounded the Jews up any way they could. Even if the Jews had guns, the Germans would've gotten them.
Do you REALLY think that if the US Government wanted to get you you could have anything to stop them from doing so?
Dude, they put a drone in the sky that kills you while you are taking a poop!
Are you really comparing the US to Mexico? Really?
Again, you are mistaken. Gun-free zones are not gun-free if you can drive 5 miles and get a gun. The ban in NYC and Washington DC doesn't work because a criminal can drive for half an hour and get a gun!
You can't ban guns in 2 days, of course you need a long term plan.
So let me get this straight: you are afraid that your neighbor will manufacture a homemade gun and come after you? Or that your everyday thug will start making his own guns in his grandma's backyard and come after you?
You clearly know nothing about warfare. I'm an 8 year military veteran, covering both before and after 9/11... To truly control a place, you need infantry. The reasons are the same as why they needed infantry to take the Jews. Really, if you didn't need infantry, why would we still have them? They're the most old-fashioned piece of "gear" still in use, today.
Yes, I'm comparing the US to Mexico... Mexico is far more violent and lawless, and they allow NO private ownership of guns. Hell, their violence is spilling INTO this country, and it's their drug war that accounts for most of our shooting deaths. Legalize the drugs, and all this would become academic. Million dollar cartels don't last long against billion dollar greedy as hell pharmaceutical companies.
"Again, you are mistaken. Gun-free zones are not gun-free if you can drive 5 miles and get a gun"
By god, you got one right! And THAT is why only the law-abiding are disarmed in every 'gun free zone' (should read "victim disarmament zone")
"The ban in NYC and Washington DC doesn't work because a criminal can drive for half an hour and get a gun!"
Not even close. They don't have to go ANYWHERE. People bring the guns TO THEM.
Welcome to economics 101. Demand... thus supply. Risks high? Price higher.
"You can't ban guns in 2 days, of course you need a long term plan."
How about a five year plan, Stalin?
“Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded.”
― Abraham Lincoln
"So let me get this straight: you are afraid that your neighbor will manufacture a homemade gun and come after you? Or that your everyday thug will start making his own guns in his grandma's backyard and come after you?"
Afraid? Not at all. Unless you've taken away my means to defend myself. But consider this: My brother shoots AIRSOFT with a guy who has had a running challenge on the radio for six years: they gave him one hour to assemble a working firearm out of parts he picked up at the local drug/hardware store, and shoot a cigar out of someone's mouth...
He never failed once
So with thousands of ACTUAL gunsmiths, armorers, and FFL holders, you think you can just put them out of business, and they won't still be making guns?
Please. You live in a dream.
The everyday thug knows he can move up in the criminal hierarchy if he's the first one to get going, making guns.
Remember: "So banning guns will stop criminals? We should obviously ban heroin, cocaine and meth, too!"
You are right, to control a place you need infantry. Who was talking about controlling an area? We are talking about killing people. You don't need infantry for that.
Where are your sources?
Mexico also has corrupt and ineffective police, corrupt politicians, a security apparatus (prosecutors, judges, public officials) that is constantly undermined by cartels...don't you think that is the source for their situation?
Oh no wait, it's the ban on guns...
Where are they bringing these guns into NYC? Of course they can buy or steal them easily outside of NYC and bring them over. Again, my argument holds true.
I was thinking more of 10 years.
By the way, the fact that you are insulting me...I am just taking that as a sign that I am right and you don't have arguments.
As I told you before, you need a long-term plan for that.
You think everyday thugs are way smarter than they actually are.
Again, that is a quote by people who want to beat their ideology into other peoples heads.
Guns are not drugs. Guns are different. Harder to smuggle. Harder to fabricate. Easier to detect.
It's like saying you can't ban people from owning protected animals because obviously it's not working on heroin, cocaine and meth!
"Where are your sources?"
For what? The infantry thing is common sense... Otherwise, scroll up.
"Mexico also has corrupt and ineffective police, corrupt politicians, a security apparatus (prosecutors, judges, public officials) that is constantly undermined by cartels...don't you think that is the source for their situation?"
How? We have all that too! Or did you think that "Operation Fast and Furious" was a marvelous and aboveboard idea?
"Oh no wait, it's the ban on guns..."
Uh, yeah. Tell me again about how the cartels are such problems, and about how well those gun bans are working.
"You think everyday thugs are way smarter than they actually are."
Do tell me your experience with "everyday thugs"...
You only need 1 in 50 to know how to do this, and those are the ones who'll sell to the ones who pay with "YOUR plasma screen TV".
I was also within the texas prison system for over 2 years. You'd be [censored] shocked how many of those people have some really startling skills... You look at them and go "Why did you need to turn to crime? Man, you coulda made a living doing this!"
"Where are they bringing these guns into NYC? Of course they can buy or steal them easily outside of NYC and bring them over. Again, my argument holds true."
You might need to rephrase your argument, because so far I'm getting two different messages. One is that you want to BAN all guns, and the other is that you think you can make all guns DISAPPEAR.
"I was thinking more of 10 years."
And is there anywhere, ever, that made guns disappear? Cite something.
"the fact that you are insulting me...I am just taking that as a sign that I am right and you don't have arguments."
You think being likened to the last guy who had a long-term plan for perfectly controlling his country is an insult? Stop trying to perfectly control your country.
hm, comment too long, splitting.
"Guns are not drugs. Guns are different. Harder to smuggle. Harder to fabricate. Easier to detect."
None of that is true! Guns are EASIER to make than meth, although some drugs grow straight out of the ground, and they have to monitor electricity usage and such, some guns are nothing more than a ballpoint pen and a .22 cartridge.
Since you want my references, here's two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm
https://www.google.com/search?q=zip+gun&hl=en&safe=off
Check the images out, they're NOT harder to make than meth.
"It's like saying you can't ban people from owning protected animals because obviously it's not working on heroin, cocaine and meth!"
you can't MAKE protected animals! How do you not see what an invalid comparison this is?? You have to start with two go get any to sell. Not true with guns.
Number of kids shot by teachers? ZERO
Number of kids who misbehave?? Pretty darn low ;)
Well right on for them if that occurred. It would have been a big change in history that is for sure. Unfortunately when Natives got guns from the Dutch (a Germanic people) before anyone else (the Iroquois) they turned them on other Natives (Hurons and other tribes in the Beaver Wars). John Brown did try to arm the slaves. the USA probably wouldn't exist and North America would be a better place. But who would have stopped the Axis Powers, Japan, Italy and Germany) in WW2...the Russians? Not with the Japanese attacking in the East because there were no Americans opposing them.
I'm in favor of living in that world, but, alas, America, fuck yeah, interventionism .
That's an incredibly good point. I don't think anyone has pointed out in this thread yet that gun control was originally established so that the KKK could 'properly oppress' blacks. How do you think life might've been different if the bullies of that era had to worry that the next "negro boy" they were driving up on had a Colt .45 on him?
safety is not just about carrying a gun around with you. Maybe ask a good police officer for advice. And a lawyer before you use excessive force...
Have you had any bad experiences in the past? Try to avoid dangerous places and situations, if possible, that works for me most of the time.
I use a wheelchair for mobility and my disability effects my legs. I have felt as I have matured that I see myself becoming vulnerable to a physical altercation that simple defensive discussion won't suffice. As a first step I choose to carry a tactical knife openly.
Christoph I appreciate your concern, I have given the issues you raise thot and full discussion which is the purpose of concealed carry classes teach. To be certain I see this as a very serious undertaking. I am not a stranger to firearms as I lived in Viet Nam as a dependent during the war. They were our lifeline as help wasn't always available.
The main reason I am choosing to arm myself is social aspect of shooting. I feel the teaching I will partake is a tremendous benefit preparing me for a difficult day.
Cheers to all! Thanks for the discussion.
And how would the poor people of Aurora ever have imagined their local cinema to be a 'dangerous place and situation'?
Why do you people never live in the REAL World?
It's important to note that only ONE spree-shooter in the past generation bought his guns himself, and that one did so illegally.
And don't worry about it, because while you're focusing on guns instead of mental health, Timothy McVeigh is placing an order for 200 gallons of diesel and some farm supplies.
So, who did he steal them from?
Ohh yeah, people who got their guns legally and didn't lock them away properly.
Go figure!
Source or GTFO.
You haven't cited anything yet. Anywhere.
AND you're now blaming a murder victim for her own death.
I am blaming nobody, please keep your cool.
Of course you're blaming someone, you're blaming the gun-owner. She's also the murder victim. Inconvenient perhaps, but true.
This is absolutely the most pathetic advice I have ever seen given. "Avoid dangerous places and situations", Christoph says. Well, as most of these random shootings seem to take place in very public places like schools, malls, office blocks, and now cinemas, does Christoph really mean STOP GOING TO SUCH PLACES?
Christoph, it is time you stepped up and explained yourself. You "claim", that works for me, [Christoph]. So, are you, Christoph, saying you visit NONE of these places where mass shootings have occured? Are you really claiming that you stay "safe" by staying home all the time?
Your reasoning in your posts is truly pathetic and has no relation to the real world the rest of us live in.
You should do all 3....Running & Hiding is very important whilst going through a reload....To which I should add, Communicating if you are fortunate enough to have a back-up compadre.
Christoph, you seem to know all the answers, now tell me, had you been a patron of that cinema in Aurora, just how would you have coped any better than the other poor souls who were trying to flee when they were gunned down?
Also, please answer this next question honestly: If any patron in that cinema had been carrying a concealed weapon and was proficient in its use, might the end result have been different?
Because my father left a gun in the car, as he was legally required to do, to go eat in an "alcohol serving establishment", and the car was broken into, the gun stolen.
Good job: Your law put another gun in the hands of criminals where it would have been perfectly safe with Dad... Who is a certified NRA safety instructor.
I'm curious, are you in the habit of blaming the victims of crimes for their commission? You know: "the crook got the gun because you had it", or "You got raped because you dressed in an enticing way"...
The point here is that the argument "If you ban guns bad guys will always have a way of getting them" is just wrong. Bad guys get guns legally or by stealing them from "good guys".
"The point here is that the argument "If you ban guns bad guys will always have a way of getting them" is just wrong. Bad guys get guns legally or by stealing them from "good guys"."
You must be pretending we aren't having a conversation about Mexico up there. And one where gunsmiths didn't magically evaporate.
1 in 5 guns confiscated in DC after the total ban were homemade. If it was a bigger area, the percentage would just go up... But you will NOT get everyone to agree that they don't need a gun for protection. How big are you? In a fight, are you sure you won't get your ass kicked? Do you believe that might makes right?
Remember, we had THOUSANDS of years where there were no guns. Guns ended the Dark Ages. Guns allow people to move out from under feudal terrorism. Guns allow people to move about freely, even after the sun goes down. In short, guns allowed civilization as you know it, and now you want to kick the pillars out and hope the roof stays up.
Maybe you somehow have no women in your family, but it's a pretty safe bet that you haven't asked them if they feel safe walking through dimly lit places where they know there are strange men anywhere nearby. Women CONSTANTLY feel vulnerable to men. Except when they know they can take them in a fight. The VAST majority of women won't do that, unarmed.
Who makes these selfmade guns?
I don't know the answer, but I am pretty sure it's gun-enthusiasts who believe guns are the pillar of modern civilization.
You are wrong, I am sorry but I just don't know anymore what to say. Guns are not the pillars of modern civilization! Do you have any sources for that? Where do you get this info?
I do have women in my family. In fact I come from a culture where women-issues are treated very seriously.
I also come from a city where one could consider parts to be very dangerous. I have learned that you do not need a gun to protect yourself. Just don't walk in dim-lit alleys. This is not a women-men issue here. I feel uncomfortable, too, when I walk through that kind of alley and I try to avoid it. The women in my family avoid these kinds of situations.
Why would you even want to provoke a situation where you have to use a gun?
I don't own a gun (if I lived in the US I would, because you are right, every crazy man can get a gun right now), and amazingly no thugster I have ever met (I used to meet quite a lot because of where I lived) did not have a gun.
Okay, so let's play this hypothetical situation out.
You are walking down a dimly-lit alley, instead of avoiding it. You know shit is going down, so you already have your hand on your gun. Suddenly a thugster jumps out of a dark corner, gun already pointing at you. His buddy shows up from a corner in your back, again, gun already pointing at you.
What do you do? How does a gun protect you?
Stop putting words in my mouth, it makes your argument pathetic.
No, when you outlaw guns, every gunsmith will be a criminal. And as I've said, it only takes about 1 in 50.
"Who makes these selfmade guns?
I don't know the answer, but I am pretty sure it's gun-enthusiasts who believe guns are the pillar of modern civilization."
Or anybody with a 3 digit IQ and access to a true value hardware store. But mostly, it's the government that you expect to protect you, when nobody can protect themselves.
"You are wrong, I am sorry but I just don't know anymore what to say. Guns are not the pillars of modern civilization! Do you have any sources for that? Where do you get this info?"
Amusing that you can make a blanket declaration with no factual backing, and then ask to see mine. Start making logical arguments, and not emotional appeals, and I'll take you much more seriously.
The proof is pretty easy: During the dark ages, you couldn't travel from city to city without the very real fear of bandits. A group of men who were very strong, and felt that their strength made up for their unwillingness to work. In response, people banded together until there were militant governments, which could muster larger forces or people with bigger knives, or faster ones, and "clear out" the road, which was then claimed as the "king's highway". Guns, for the first time, allowed (as the Japanese said) a man with ten minute's training with a gun to defeat a man who had spent 20 years studying the art of the samurai. So I suppose the question I have to ask is this:
Do you think that by virtue of being stronger or more skilled than you, that someone has a higher claim to your property than you do? And if not, how will you prevent them from taking it?
"Just don't walk in dim-lit alleys."
It is said that civilization is the force that allows you to walk down a dark alleyway and still feel safe. That's a good way to make my point.
"Okay, so let's play this hypothetical situation out.
You are walking down a dimly-lit alley, instead of avoiding it. You know shit is going down, so you already have your hand on your gun. Suddenly a thugster jumps out of a dark corner, gun already pointing at you. His buddy shows up from a corner in your back, again, gun already pointing at you.
What do you do? How does a gun protect you?"
You take your wallet, and throw it to the side of the front guy, continue your turn, moving laterally, and shoot the one behind you when he bends down to get it.
Now you tell ME something: How are you better off in that situation if there are no guns?
For a very up-to-date chart on the outcomes of "spree shootings" when stopped by civilians versus by police, see here
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/
"The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33"
and
"The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police."
Thanks. :)
Somehow, it is not enough for victims to rely on a Nanny State to bear responsibility for their safety and security. It is not enough that they abdicate all responsibility for their own security.
Unbelievably, they have to presume to speak for the rest of us, too. They feel entitled to dictate to us, I suppose due to their superior moral qualities, and they feel as though it is utterly natural for them to decree that no one should be armed. Just the cops.
Well, you nimrods, this is a recipe for tyranny.
There sure are a lot of stupid people running around. And they sure do feel no compulsion to speak just for themselves. They think that they are smarter than the rest of us, they think that we "just do not get it." We are not smart enough to understand their superior moral views.
I fully support their right to be victims. In fact, I hope that more victims refuse to bear arms. Let them be the surprised, dead victims at the next mass shooting.
Those of us who elect to be responsible for our own security will take care of ourselves.
You see, I would never presume to speak for you. And now that I know how you feel, I will not bother trying to defend you, either. You deserve to reap what you sow.
Morons.
@ Texas2Step: Sarcasm is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark (...) usually conveyed through irony or understatement. Most authorities distinguish sarcasm from irony; however, others argue that sarcasm may or often does involve irony or employs ambivalence." (OED) You're right: I'm EFL and my degrees include English, industrial arts and teaching
Arming teachers and staff, to me seems like a last resort. All the teachers and parents I know personally (Midwest and Canada) would never ever want guns in a school (although they like hunting or shooting in a club, e.g.)
Germany the same (well, situation is different here, so that doesn't count). Regarding the 1930s: The Germans never had such an affinity to weapons (at home or concealed carry, I mean), so that wouldn't have helped a lot against this dictator. By the way, did you know that between 1921 and 1944 at least 41 attempts were made to kill him? None succeeded, unfortunately.
Regarding armed citizens running around and defending freedom: We won't find a solution or compromise here, I guess. So let's agree to disagree.
Just one teacher proficient with a gun and armed would have saved all those poor Amish children who were slaughtered.
When the Quakers controlled the colony of Pennsylvania elected representative house (prior to the American Revolution) thousands of colonists in West Pennsylvania were slaughtered because the Quakers would not vote for armed resistance, thinking they could convince the Natives to be peaceful. I am not saying appropriation of Native lands was right. However I am saying that when you are a victim or even act like a victim (Quakers) you can cause the victimization of others.The weight of evidence is against you mein bruden. I agree assault weapons are going overboard but when I worked with street gans in Chcago in the 70s...they all had guns. They did not buy them in gunstores but from illicit dealers like The Oufit who had trunkfuls of stolen guns...I watched it happen. One of the reasons I no longer live in Chicago.
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/
"The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33"
Maybe they don't want guns in a school, but I bet they want the ONLY gun to be held by the villain, even less... And want to see the next sunrise even more.
Christof,
You and most anti-gunners often say that citizens should cower in fear and wait for the police to save them. This is terrible advice.
Ther Supreme Court determined that police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT. Read all about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-police-have-no-obligation-to-protect-you-yes-really/
Shocking, huh? In the real world, you must be responsible for protecting yourself. Otherwise, accept victimhood.
In fact ,any time someone says guns make them nervous, I typically agree with them, and tell them that they shouldn't have one, then... The last thing I want to do is force a firearm into the hands of a nervous person.
My mother carries a .45 in her purse most times, so yes, elderly women are good examples. Or did you want them to fight off muggers with their purses, using them as a club?
And what ABOUT kids? How well were they protected the other day when nobody was armed to save them? Where were your police?
Guns can kill people. I don't want to walk around wondering which whacko has a gun.
And no, I don't get nervous around guns. I just don't believe it's your God given right to have one. It's a privilege, not a right.
What about the kids if Lanza's mom did not have guns? What about the kids if she didn't take him shooting?
No.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in "god given" anything, but I know that ownership of property is a right, and guns are property. You also have a right to be secure in yourself, and your possessions, as well as the right to defend your life.
Saying that you have the right to defend yourself but don't have the right to a gun is like saying "Well, you have a right to life, but that doesn't mean you get OXYGEN with it".
I need you to understand that rights do not come from government, and government cannot take them away, or even grant new ones. Government can RECOGNIZE the existence of new rights, but cannot encroach on any of them. There's no "special status" for government: breaching a right is a "wrong". That's not a play on words, it's their original meaning.
"What about the kids if Lanza's mom did not have guns?"
Then he'd have gotten them elsewhere, and stop pretending otherwise.
"What about the kids if she didn't take him shooting?"
Hardly relevant, he clearly didn't learn the shooter safety rules, so it's not like he'd have missed out on those.
What if someone took YOU shooting? Do you think that would make you want to murder babies? That's the equivalence you're alluding to...
What about anti-aircraft guns? Fully automatic rifles? Tanks? Warplanes? Those are just property, after all!
I agree. For me the UN Charta of Human Rights is something that cannot be taken away. Owning a gun is a privilege in my eyes, I am sorry.
Yeah, where would he get that gun from? What if he could not steal a gun because nobody has a gun? Ever thought of that? Don't pretend like he could've made guns magically appear.
Of course it is relevant! That way she showed him how to shoot, that guns exist and introduced him to the whole culture.
I have actually gone shooting. It's a lot of fun. Don't distort my point. I am not saying he became mad because of guns. That is not true. He was a wicked man, but you don't hand a wicked man a weapon, do you?
What about anti-aircraft guns? Fully automatic rifles? Tanks? Warplanes? Those are just property, after all!"
NOW you're getting it!
In the US civil war, the Cannon was the heaviest weapon of its day. People would buy, or make, and own these heavy cannons, decorate their lawns with them, even... It was good practice indeed, since when the fighting broke out, having a cannon meant you didn't join the army as infantry, but as artillery. The lifespan was much longer.
It's amusing to me that most people can't imagine living without government, because "some other" government would come and invade. I laugh, because we border Canada and Mexico, and neither is worth worrying about, and everyone else has to come across the ocean, to try... And the same people who think it's ridiculous to fight a government also think it inconceivable that citizens would own these heavier implements of combat.
The UN Charter of rights DOES protect thee right to own property, and a gun IS property. It also protects the right to the security of a person. Keep in mind that crimes happen when cops aren't around, and not by accident. Crooks don't want to be caught.
Your next point is where I need to entrench and we have to have some SERIOUS discussion. How on earth would you take away every gun from people? By using more people with guns? When will THOSE people give up their guns? What do you do about people who have guns that nobody knows about?
Constructing a gun is in no way "magically making one appear".
NOBODY handed the wicked man a gun, he stole it... And wicked men will FOREVER be able to get ahold of deadly weaponry. The trouble is that wicked men shouldn't EVER be allowed to have the ONLY weapons!
Since Australia banned guns, armed robberies are up 69%, assaults WITH guns are up 28%, MURDERS with gun are up 19%, and home invasions are up 21%.
Your policy-allies, not mine.
The shooting thing isn't distorting my point, I'm showing you that shooting and guns don't make you evil. Being EVIL makes you evil.
Also:
on 12/17, a gunman attempted to shoot up a theater. He was killed by a gunowner. This did not make the media.
Consider the possibility that you are being led by the media.
"this year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police will be more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
-Adolph Hitler, 1935.
NEVER trust the government when it say that their guns are plenty good enough to protect you.
“On total rapid mass murder aborts, UNARMED citizens are accounting for about 43%,” ... “Armed citizens and police officers about split the remainder. Officers of course are handicapped by both time and distance.” Ron Borsch of SEALE-training academy. He researched about 40 incidents. Not included are incidents involving suicide of the attacker before anybody could contact (verbally, by hitting, shooting at, etc) the shooter.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/07/robert-farago/armed-civilians-account-for-43-of-active-shooter-aborts/ Mistake here: less than 30% armed civilians stopped a shooter, 43 % were unarmed; rest was stopped by the police.
Also, the number of active-shooter- scenarios seems to have increased over time: 7 school attacks between 1891 and 1970; later one every three years to nowadays more than one incident per month.
http://feraljundi.com/1096/law-enforcement-civilian-response-to-active-shooter-situations-from-a-police-officer/
What this guy writes seems to make a lot of sense (from an American view). So I recommend reading it.
Triple Charly over and out.
The likelihood of you being killed in a mass shooting is vanishingly small. In a country of over 300 million people, 19 people have been killed in mass shooting this year, which is greater than average. But lets say it was bigger, say it was a hundred people in a year. That means you have a .000033% chance of dying of this sort of thing in a particular year. This is dwarfed by "run of the mill" gun deaths, of which there are an average of 86 per DAY, or 31,200 a year. 17,350 of those are suicides. So this means the average American has only a .0046% chance of getting killed with a gun that isn't his own in a given year. You are almost twice as likely to be killed in a car accident.
The biggest real threat to modern Americans is obesity, which increases rates of heart disease, cancer and other diseases. Heart disease alone kills over 600,000 people a year, 36 times as many as gun murders. If you really want to give people some advice that could save their lives, Michael, tell them to stop eating crap and get some exercise. This article is pointless fantasizing about what should be done in an almost unfathomably unlikely event.
Well Bruce, the Irish convicts and WASP who guarded them did not have to face Mohawk,Cherokee . Axtecs, etc. when they colonized your nation and did not have to have guns to control Black African slaves. they did hunt with guns but that is different than a tradition and history of man on man violence. It might have been wrong but it happened and most of those colonists, at least in North America, where seeking refuge from those same WASPS who guarded those Irish convicts that James II sent to Australia...luc ky you!
BTW, are you guys making any progress with YOUR drug war?
I m a Malaysian, we lived under a very strict gun control law, like no ordinary people able to own guns except a few very rich or goldsmiths. Gun related homicide is limited to people killed by hired killers n bank robbers. Our country is a democracy BUT the present government is in power for 50 years since independence from the Brits, it is by most of our view a corrupt government and standard of free speech is a joke. If in this coming election it knew it will lose n drum up a reason for a crackdown on all the opposition voices we ll have a condition not unlike Libya and Syria in our land, there will be blood before there will be another real n free election. Giving up the 2nd Amendment ? U Americans better think real hard.
We practice fire drills and every public building you go in has the fire exits and fire escape plan printed somewhere. Fires rarely happen but when they do we are prepared to deal with them. Another commenter spoke about percentages, and he's right. This rarely happens, but when it does it is catastrophic. Isn't it the least we could do to teach people how to identify a threat of this nature and react accordingly. Why isn't this standard workplace policy?
RSS