If each of us carried a gun . . . . . . we could help to combat terrorism

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
From the Sunday Times:


For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of “gun control”. India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.



In Britain we might recall the prolonged failure of armed police to contain the Hungerford killer, whose rampage lasted more than four hours, and who in the end shot himself. In Dunblane, too, it was the killer who ended his own life: even at best, police response is almost always belated when gunmen are on the loose. One might think, too, of the McDonald’s massacre in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, where the Swat team waited for their leader (who was held up in a traffic jam) while 21 unarmed diners were murdered.



Rhetoric about standing firm against terrorists aside, in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims. The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago.



In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.



In the past two decades the enactment of “right to carry” legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted.

There are exceptions: Virginia Tech, the site of the 2007 massacre of 32 people, was one local “gun-free zone” that forbade the bearing of arms even to those with a licence to carry.



“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India,” Mahatma Gandhi said, “history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The Mumbai massacre is a bitter postscript to Gandhi’s comment. D’Souza now laments his own helplessness in the face of the killers: “I only wish I had had a gun rather than a camera.”


Full article from The Times Online

Reason and logic shouldnt have such an uphill battle. The relative ease with which reality and truth are beaten down is horrifying.




posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I am in no way opposing gun ownership, but if you think carrying a gun is going to stop "terrorism", you are silly.

If someone is willing to die for their cause, what good does a gun to you?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
what terrorism are you proposing to counter? if everybody is armed and you see one guy shooting at another, which one is the terrorist and which one is the counter terrorist?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Define "Us." The Good-guys ?

The West ?? Caucasians ??

If each of us carried a gun there would be more dead civilians. Terrorism would still exist. Say theres a panic in the street, and all your neighbours gather around with pistols in hand, all it takes is one panicked gun owner to turn that group of people into a mass hysterical killing machine.

Logic and reason had left the building before you entered.

To beat terrorism We must remind ourselves of our connections to each other.

WE ALL LIVE HERE ON EARTH!!!



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 



If someone is willing to die for their cause, what good does a gun to you?


Makes them die for their cause a lot sooner than they anticipated.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I have a better idea. If each of us had a gun we could clean up government real quick.




posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Okay. Thats the title of the article.

How do you know who the terrorist (or any bad guy is)? Generally, the one with complete disregard for the law is the bad guy. You walk into a room and there's two men screaming with rifles in their hands at a room full of people some of which have hand guns pointed at the screaming guys with rifles who do you think the bad guy is? It's not rocket science. To make it easier for you quite often there is a mask involved. And if some people are cowering the people pointing guns at the cowering women and children might clue you in on something.

Would it make everybody happy if I edited the articles title out of the thread title? ?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
I am in no way opposing gun ownership, but if you think carrying a gun is going to stop "terrorism", you are silly.

If someone is willing to die for their cause, what good does a gun to you?


Making them die before they can kill a dozen people would be a plus, dont you think?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by trilateral_insignia
 



If each of us carried a gun there would be more dead civilians. Terrorism would still exist. Say theres a panic in the street, and all your neighbours gather around with pistols in hand, all it takes is one panicked gun owner to turn that group of people into a mass hysterical killing machine.


This was the same logic used in Texas prior to Bush signing a concealed handgun law. What you describe has yet to happen.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
So are you falling for the pre O-BAHH-ma era war on terrorism conditioning?

Because that is exactly what it is. Hasnt anyone learned anything over the last 8 years????

We dont need a repeat. Remember, there is supposed to be "change" not "same".



Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I am willing to bet that the people of Mexico wish they didn't have such strict gun laws. The gangs are the ones running that country. Did I mention that most of the police force is part of those gangs?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Would it make everybody happy if I edited the articles title out of the thread title? ?


it would be a little less likely that we would assume it's your opinion.

personally, i don't trust you to make the distinction between the two, i don't trust the cops, i don't even trust me.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I'd have to agree with this! Vermont does not have a concealed weapons permit and crime in the Green Mountain State is minimal. Maybe because you don't know who'se packing.

Plus, if we all carried firearms, the hoods and crooks would be nullified. They'd know they'd be in for a fight, so crime rate (on a face-to-face basis) would drop.

I gotta side with THISGUY from my home state on this one... I believe it would be a help in the medium and long run...



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
This is an absolute prime example of complete and utter stupidity,i cant believe im actually reading this,what drivel.


[edit on 9-12-2008 by Solomons]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I am 100 percent for the right to have guns. I own several myself.

But when you say everyone should carry them for the purpose of fighting terrorism, you will have people going off half cocked and cocky and using them to keep that aggressive driver from cutting you off the lane, using them to resolve a bar fight, using them at any suspicious looking person even tho they are not, and pretty soon everyone will be a terrorist in the end.

Why not just stick with supporting the current right to have guns and lets not take it so far that the entire nation becomes a basket case full of gun toting maniacs.

One thing it will definately do is give the authority to declare martial law and then you got problems.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I think this raises a few valid points to consider. Damnit I'm tired of every time someone says they want to arm themselves to avoid being a victim someone ties to flip the script on them and say "well then we will all be shooting each other" Thats BS!

Policemen don't always show up on time, sometimes 911 is not an option and SWAT storming the building after half of the hostages get killed is not an acceptable solution. Believe it or not there is a time and a place where a citizen should be able to protect themselves on the spot.

Here are some hard cold facts:www.justfacts.com...


* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)


And more:

"One study found that in Florida CCW holders were 300 times less likely than the general population to commit a crime. The firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Between the beginning of Florida’s permitting program and the end of 2005, the state issued 1,104,468 concealed weapons permits. During that time period; 3,643 permits were revoked—a rate of about .3 percent. Of those revocations; 2,941 involved a crime after licensure; 157 of those crimes involved the use of a firearm. "

"A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense."

"North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law."

Georgia: "studies by numerous independent researchers and state agencies have found that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes"

in 2004, the state of Utah had a permit revocation rate of about .4 percent. The rate for revocations due to
firearm offenses was .02 percent..

between 1986 and 2003, only .8 percent of Kentucky's 71,770 licenses were revoked for any reason

in 2001, Indiana revoked about .2 percent of its outstanding concealed weapon permits

since the inception of its concealed weapons program in 1995, Virginia has seen a revocation rate of just .2
percent.

between October of 1994 and February of 1996, the state of Wyoming issued 2,273 permits and revoked
four, a revocation rate of just under .2 percent.

between 1996, when its shall-issue law passed, and September of 1999, the state of Oklahoma issued 30,406
permits and revoked only 62–a rate of .2 percent.


The truth shouldn't come as a surprise either.
This is what you typically know about a person who has a CCW in many states:
(specifically Tennessee in the example)

They've never been convicted of "any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding one (1) year".
They've never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
They've never been convicted of the offense of stalking.
They were not under indictment at the time they applied for a CCW.
They were not the subject of an order of protection at the time they applied for a CCW.
They haven't had a DUI in the past five years or two or more DUIs in the past 10 years
They haven't been under treatment for or hospitalized for addiction to drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years.
They've never been adjudicated as mentally defective.
They've never been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions ("dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or other than honorable discharge Chapter 1340-2-5-.02 (5)").
They've never renounced their U.S. citizenship.
They've never received social security disability benefits "by reason of alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability."


Besides, most CCW holders know exactly what the law is, and the responsibility of carrying and the serious implications of using a CCW inappropriately, so many holders tend to AVOID more situations that may be inclined to lead to trouble.




[edit on 9-12-2008 by Digital_Reality]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
I am in no way opposing gun ownership, but if you think carrying a gun is going to stop "terrorism", you are silly.

If someone is willing to die for their cause, what good does a gun to you?


Making them die before they can kill a dozen people would be a plus, dont you think?


Absolutely, but it doesnt stop terrorism. And really, show me one single example in the history of the world where a true terror attack was thwarted by a citizen with a gun (or a cop with a handgun, for that matter)



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I'm curious as to why when mentioning firearms for defense or the success of towns like Kennesaw that mandate every home have a firearm it's all well and good but replace the home intruder or mugger with 'terrorist' and you get a rapid secession of rabid responses.

Isnt a psycho threatening your life just a psycho threatening your life? Why is it effective in stopping a local typical crime but not effective at all in stopping a nut trying to hijack a bus or slaughter a room full of vacationers? Just because he's a "terrorist"?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Absolutely, but it doesnt stop terrorism. And really, show me one single example in the history of the world where a true terror attack was thwarted by a citizen with a gun (or a cop with a handgun, for that matter)


4th paragraph in my OP.


In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Absolutely, but it doesnt stop terrorism. And really, show me one single example in the history of the world where a true terror attack was thwarted by a citizen with a gun (or a cop with a handgun, for that matter)


4th paragraph in my OP.


In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.


Bank robbery does not =terrorist attack. A terrorist attack is carried out with a goal of death. A bank robbery is about getting away with the money.

Try again.






new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join