jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (115 posts)

We are fragile

  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    This is one reason why I think guns are so important. Look at what happened to Boston with these two bombers(and they weren't very bright... at all. It pretty much looks like they had absolutely no plan after dropping off the bombs), and look at what happened in California with one rogue cop.

    We have seen two instances within a year, where millions of people were in fear, inconveniences, shut in their homes, or even accidentally shot by police, because of 3 men. One man was able to completely throw off operations for half of California. Two boys were able to shut down large parts of a metropolitan area.

    Just look at how much fear and damage can be done by a single person, and imagine what would happen if 20, or 50 operatives were coordinated to do these kinds of things across America.

    When citizens are defenseless, all they can do is hunker down and cower in fear. Bad guys will always be among us, having a defenseless citizenry doesn't do anything to stop them... it just enables them.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So, citizens who have guns (i.e., are not "defenseless), will do what, exactly?  What did the Boston citizens who own guns do to help in this recent situation? 

      Your post makes no sense to me.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Armed citizens can defend themselves and their property.

        As I've said before, how do you imagine things would be different for a fugitive where he knew nobody was armed compared to a fugitive where he knew everybody was armed?

        Less hostage situations, less stolen vehicles, less needless civilian casualties.

        An unarmed citizen has one option: call the police. An armed citizen has more than that.

        There have been countless times where armed citizens have protected themselves, stopped a bad guy and even held him for the police to come, or simply killed him in the commission of the crime(and no, I won't shed a tear for a murderer or rapist who is killed).

        I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between people who can act for themselves and people who have to wait for the police in every situation(and hope they are still alive when they get there).

        If the bomber hadn't been wounded, he might have taken that man hostage and stolen his vehicle, instead of just laying down in the boat and hiding, I'm just glad he was hurt at that point.

      2. Clint Ward profile image60
        Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hopefully they stayed home and protected their family.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image59
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I understand your thinking Jaxson, but I think it's a false sense of security.  I also think that if terrorists are making people run out and buy guns to feel safer that they have been much more effective than I am comfortable allowing them to be. 

      In parts of the middle east many people are armed with much more powerful weapons then we have here.  To my knowledge, it hasn't helped them be any safer.  If it has, then it isn't obviously noticeable.  I am personally unwilling to allow my neighborhood to turn into that.  To allow my children to think that the only way they are safe is if they have bigger guns than the bad guy. Which is essentially what you are saying we need to make us feel safer.

      I will literally pack my children up and leave America if it comes to that.  They deserve to have a childhood free of fear.  Teaching them that they can be less scared if they have a gun doesn't do that.

    3. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Rubbish.
      No one is trying to affect people's rights to defend themselves, I am not in favor of "assault weapon"bans but anyone who thinks they are an effective tool for self defense is a moron, not only is a combat shotgun far more effective in that sort of situation (and less useful for full scale slaughter in schools etc.) but assault rifles indoors are a much a danger to the user and his or her family as to the intrude, the ricochet is unpredictable and the weapon is usually too long to use effectively indoors so this makes no argument of any validity on any issue of actual debate.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yikes.

        No, shotguns are not better for self-defense. Saying so only shows that you don't understand the ballistics of both weapons, or the advantages of the AR platform.

        First, shotguns will actually penetrate more walls than an AR.

        Secondly, shotguns have huge recoil. That makes follow-up shots more difficult, and also tends to cause people to miss because of recoil anticipation.

        Thirdly, shotguns don't hold as much ammunition, and reloading takes a long time.

        Fourthly, ARs are not longer than shotguns. Both weapons come in varying lengths.

        Fifth, a single round from an AR makes a permanent wound cavity that is as large, or larger than the entire spread pattern of a shotgun at indoor distances. The shotgun doesn't make a permanent wound cavity, just individual wound channels.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Shotgun blasts at close range are just as effective as a .223 for putting people down, the force imparted is greater (hence the recoil) so in many ways they are more effective at neutralizing though less effective at killing and that is a good thing all round.

          Scatter does not ricochet with lethality almost always) which means you don't have to worry about killing your child in the other room when your round bounces.

          Yes shotguns have recoil because they transfer more force.

          Shotguns are much easier to use in the less than optimal conditions people are often in if their home is being invaded as they require less skill to use effectively.

          Shotguns penetrating more is complete rubbish this is a USMC video of AR15 penetration (with an automatic model but same penetration) it will go straight through brick and wood, scatter will not do so to anywhere near the same extent and will often not be lethal after doing so.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lprGoEpDXJQ

          A shotgun blast won't travel anywhere near as far, when you wake up in the middle of the night with an AR15 and miss everyone within half a kilometer and more is in danger of you shooting them which is blatantly irresponsible gun ownership.

          Lastly yes shotguns are and can be shorter simply because of their barrel requirements, shotguns do not require rifling and thus can have shorter barrels period making them more useful indoors.

          As I said I don't support banning them but everyone actually using them for home defense is an irresponsible ass putting his family and everyone in his area in danger, usually because he wants to feel real cool with his AR15.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Do you really want to get into this?

            Go look at the Box of Truth website, you can compare .223 vs 00 buck penetration on walls. You're wrong.

            Force isn't the deciding factor. Buckshot is round and ineffective at incapacitating someone. .223 will(depending on the setup) fragment or expand, causing more damage, as well as a large permanent wound cavity.

            Shotguns are not easier to use, they are more difficult. As I said, recoil anticipation is a huge problem. Follow-up shots are much slower. And don't give me the malarky about how much easier it is to hit someone with one, because spread at indoor ranges is generally nonexistent.

            You can get short barreled ARs too, even pistol length. Most people aren't going to go through the hassle of getting a short-barreled rifle OR shotgun, they will buy one from Mossberg that doesn't need an NFA stamp.

            Seriously, if you want to talk about shotgun vs. AR for defense, you need to research the ballistics, wounding performance, and the tactical pros/cons of each weapon system.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't want to research ballistics, wounding performance, and the tactical pros/cons of weapon systems.
              I don't want to have a "weapon system" at all.

              Maybe we should all build bombs in our homes so we can fight firepower with firepower.
              Where does this line of reasoning end?
              When every American citizen has a nuke in their basement??

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You don't have to research them... but if you haven't done any research, would you claim to know better than somebody who has done the research and has the experience?

                Personally, I'd feel fine if I were allowed to put some land mines and claymores on my property. Just don't climb my fence and ignore my signs wink

                But trying to argue bombs/nukes is a bit far-fetched, neither of those are weapons which can be accurately controlled to deal with a threat and minimize potential collateral damage.

    4. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I fail to see how everyone having guns would have made one whit of difference.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Who knows how many people might have had the opportunity to stop them earlier. There was at least one person who was less than 30 feet away from the two bombers, to the side and behind them while they were shooting at police, with a clear field of fire. Very likely that, if he had a rifle, he would have been able to stop them from doing any more harm.

        Even news reporters who have never shot a gun in their life have been able to hit 1-2 inch groups at that range the first time they shot a rifle.

        The most important thing is that it is harder to turn an armed person into a victim.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    So if/when another crazy or 20 or 50 operatives strike,  you and other non-defenseless citizens are going to organize yourselves, figure out who they are, and stop them in their tracks faster -- and with less inconvenience or casualties of innocent lives -- than trained law enforcement agents?

    I scan see the mob mentality now.
    Look at me, I'm judge, jury and executioner! Hoo ha!
    Are you going to wear white sheets over your heads, too?
    roll

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What's up with your attitude?

      Do you think it would be easier to hide, take hostages, steal vehicles, etc... among people with no weapons, or people who all have weapons?

      Also, it wasn't the police who finally found the second bomber. It was a guy at his own home. If a bomber, who may have a gun and/or IEDs shows up at your house, would you rather have a gun, or would you rather have no other choice but to wait for the police to show up?

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I can hear the cries coming from the untrained mobs of armed citizens, “Don’t shoot them until we read them their rights!”
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The 'untrained mob' of armed citizens are, on average, more accurate than the police, less likely to hurt a bystander than the police, and much more likely to obey the law than the average citizen.

        The myth of 'only the police are trained well enough' needs to stop... most police only have to shoot 50 bullets a year to be 'trained'. Most enthusiasts shoot more than that in a single trip to the range.

    3. Clint Ward profile image60
      Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Some of you get really bent out of shape. If we own guns we're racist now? I understood exactly what he meant, having a firearm means you have the ability to protect yourself. He didn't say anything about groups out hunting for bad guys.

  3. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Part of my point, for those who don't understand it, is why would you want to rely solely on the police for your protection?

    When, in a good scenario, they can get to you in 5 minutes? When, in a bad scenario, they might not get to you for hours?

    When hundreds of officers might take days, weeks, or even months to apprehend a single suspect?

    Why wouldn't you want to be able to take care of yourself, when you have no guarantee that somebody else will be able to take care of you, for you?

  4. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    I think we all understand your point.  Have you ever actually had to point a fire a gun at a human being?  Most people haven't.  Most people aren't going to react to a home invasion with the precision of Dirty Harry. 

    For the record, we have guns in the house now, but I never did when the kids were young.  However, we still don't keep them armed and ready, and honestly, I don't spend my time thinking about having to defend myself from an intruder with a gun.  We have other ways that are probably much more effective.  But, hey, if it makes you feel all manly and such....

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_CrHZfruTr7zMcMO-a3YhUJnYx42ZI-i5LGZFl9-rfv-siZKg

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The other part of the point is how bad things are getting... the war on terror will not be won, it's like the war on drugs... with the war on terror, the more we fight the more enemies we make. We're not really at risk of being invaded by a traditional army, but this war is one we are really at risk... we truly are at risk of having half our nation shut down all at once.

      I've never had to shoot anybody, but that doesn't mean I'll never have the need... 20 men like Dorner all cutting loose at once could have catastrophic effects.

      I don't have guns because it makes me feel all manly, but of course that is what you would resort to. I have guns because there are evil people in the world, and we're not as safe as most think we are.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm curious....

        What are your stances on laws restricting alcohol and tobacco sales to minors?

        What about making certain drugs illegal?

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think drugs or alcohol should be illegal. Especially not drugs which are not harmful to other people. I'm not sure what the best way to handle certain substances is, to be honest.

          Selling to minors? Dunno, haven't given it any thought.

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
            Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The reason I bring that up is because a common argument from those who want as few restrictions as possible is that if guns are banned, only criminals get guns.

            Ultimately, you could say the same thing about drugs, alcohol and other substances.

            So either a few restrictions on guns are OK, or we shouldn't be able to place restrictions on anything. At least that's the way I see it.

            1. innersmiff profile image71
              innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I vote the latter!

              More specifically, voluntary actions should not be restricted in any way.

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
                Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ron Paul agrees with you as well.

                I just think that there isn't much of an argument to be made when it comes to not regulating gun sales when we do it with so many other products.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, I do think, based on this post, having guns makes you feel all manly.  One, you make it clear you believe arming yourself makes you more secure against terrorism.  I believe, as Melissa states above, it is a false security.  Sort of like when my girlfriend carries mace, but buries it deep inside a zipped pocket in her purse.  Makes her feel better but I doubt it will be much use if she is attacked by a bad guy.  Two, you advocate more fully arming your fellow citizens in order to defend against people like the Boston marathon bombers.  You are advocating that others adopt your illogical and fear-based approach, because it will make you feel more secure.

        But again, hey, if having a gun and imagining using it against bad guys makes you feel all manly, then go for it.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You're just getting what you want to get out of my posts. It's not illogical to say that guns can be used to defend yourself, there is established data from multiple reputable sources showing that it happens millions of times a year... but keep on trying to belittle me instead of actually talking about things rationally. I'm sure it makes you feel like a big person.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, I have a reason for writing this way to you.  I live among quite a few people with your type of thinking.  I think you are smart, but have been ingrained to believe that carrying that big, bad firearm somehow makes you a better protector of your family.  You have repeatedly advocated arming more people as a way to make us all safer.  It is irrational to think that going back to the wild west where everyone is armed will stop terrorists, or decrease crime, or prevent the murder of children in schools, all of which I've seen you and others state on these forums.  I won't bother posting statistics because we've been there done that too many times and it leads nowhere.

            Sorry if it comes across as belittling you, but have I misrepresented your position?  No, I've merely stated that you are trying to use fear as a way to convince people we all need to arm ourselves against terrorism.  That was what your OP was about, your theory that if bad guys knew we were all armed it would somehow make them less likely to commit crimes.  Most people aren't buying it, including most gun owners.

            Yes, I said it makes you feel more manly to own a gun and imagine yourself defending your property and family against bad guys.  I sincerely believe it does, and I sincerely believe it's a driving force behind this kind of thinking.  I sincerely believe that it needs to be mentioned, to bring a little light to what is going on behind this compulsive need to reject any kind of regulation on guns. 

            The gun manufacturers who back the NRA are very good at their jobs; they know exactly how to manipulate and tap into feelings of fear, paranoia, masculinity, ego.  You might think that pointing this out is "belittling."  I think it's a legitimate point of discussion.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hi PP.
              Excellent points.

              Like you, we have firearms (handguns and shotguns) in the house.
              When the police helicopters are circling the park behind our house looking for someone -- as happens
              at least a couple of times a year -- I do not have the urge to run outside with the Glock and
              corner the bastard hiding in my neighbor's yard.
              Nor does my husband, who is a much more "manly" person than I, and a much, much better shot!!

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not going outside either. The only time I would be moving with a weapon would be if I was separated from my family. It's much better to take up a defensive position at a choke point with concealment and/or cover.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly.  And I would have no problem with all of our guns being licensed and tracked in a nationwide database, just like automobiles.

        2. Clint Ward profile image60
          Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Based on your post I think you are afraid of guns and will more than likely have them taken from you in the event you actually need to use it. You should sell your guns and not put your life in any more danger than it already is.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Wow... I didn't get fear of guns at all from that. I'm curious of why you did?

          2. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LOL, you are funny.  I'm actually a lot like Jaxson, in that my family and I are increasingly self-sufficient.  We live on a farm and raise pigs, chickens, and goats, and grow much of our own food.  We have guns, too, and we use them.  I wouldn't have a problem with them being highly regulated, though.  And I disagree that arming the citizenry will make us safer against terrorists, which is Jaxson's original premise in this thread.

            1. Clint Ward profile image60
              Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So you think unarmed citizens would be safer? Like I said, you are afraid of guns. What does self sufficiency have to do with you being afraid of guns or not?

            2. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, unarmed citizens are safer. People who can't or aren't willing to defend themselves, but instead rely on the police, are safer. Completely logical.

              Who is going to protect you if mass riots break out, and the police response time is 6 hours or more?

              Who is going to protect you if someone is trying to hurt you at home, and the police are 5 minutes away?

              How does being unarmed make you safer?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Honestly, if mass riots break out, they won't be where we are, out in the boonies.  And if the zombie apocalypse happens, we'll probably have time to load our guns.  big_smile

                The real question is, why do you have a problem with regulating guns?  I don't care if you feel the need to keep them in your home; I just think you ought to be willing to abide by certain common sense regulations.  That is all.

                1. Clint Ward profile image60
                  Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you under the delusional impression that guns are not regulated now?

                2. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, but a lot of people will be in danger if riots break out. It's a very real danger too.

                  I have a problem with infringing on Constitutional rights. If you do some reading on the founders opinions and arguments at the time, you will see how important they considered it. Also, if you look at what they went through, you will understand why it was so important to them.

                  The other problem is, most gun regulations would either have no effect, or a negative effect, and I can't support that.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I disagree that imposing regulations is infringing upon constitutional rights.  You can still have your guns.

    2. Clint Ward profile image60
      Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You have unloaded weapons? They don't really do you any good unloaded.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I believe she has children (I might be wrong) You wouldn't keep a loaded gun in a house with children... right?  Please say you wouldn't.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Only on my person or in a safe.

        2. Clint Ward profile image60
          Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why not? I have one loaded right under my bed in an openbox gunvault. When it isn't in there its on me. The rest I have locked up in a safe, not so my kids can't get them but so someone else cannot. Those of you who have them and are afraid to let your kids handle them under supervision are an accident waiting to happen.

          To answer your other question, she must be afraid of guns if they are not loaded, she probably doesn't know the proper way to handle them therefore she is a danger to herself and whoever else may be around.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Allowing kids to handle guns supervised, while repugnant to me, is one thing. I agree if you are going to let them handle the things, you should teach them safety.

            Having a gun accessible to children unsupervised is totally different.

            In response, I am certainly not afraid of guns, and I certainly know how to use one. However I think it is common sense to not have them loaded in a house with children.  I don't presume to speak for PP, but I would assume that is her logic.

            1. Clint Ward profile image60
              Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You would agree that children are curious? Would you rather they look for and find the guns on their own? I don't understand why you wouldn't want your children to learn about guns from you rather than some other kid who found his parents.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Um... I think I did agree that if they are going to be around guns then they should learn safety.

                "I agree if you are going to let them handle the things, you should teach them safety"

                My problem is having them in a house, loaded, where they can get to them.  Like say, you decide to go to the bathroom (assuming you don't take the gun with you to pee) and wake up the next morning and find your child has 1. Killed the bully at school 2. Killed himself 3. Killed 22 children 4. Has it aimed at you, because you took away his playstation.

                My children are no longer allowed to go to houses with guns in them. My child did learn about guns from a 17 year old kid whose daddy taught him all about gun safety.  Kept them loaded and in the house.  The kid pulled a gun on my son because he lost a video game.

                1. Clint Ward profile image60
                  Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Um...you said it was repugnant.

                  Would your child kill 22 people because you took away his play station? Mine damn sure wouldn't.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I said I found guns repugnant.  I said that I found parents letting their children handle them repugnant. Then I wrote more words after that wink

                    I don't think my son would either.  I'm pretty sure that Adam Lanza's mom didn't either.  Or the Columbine shooter's parents.

                    Most parents are unaware that their child intends to commit suicide.
                    Most parents are unaware of children being bullied.

                    I know my kids. I spend more way more time with them than the average parent.  I also know that we can't read their minds.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        LOL, guns are a tool for us on the farm.  They don't need to be loaded until we want to use them.  We don't use them to kill bad guys; we use them to keep out predators and keep the rabbit population under control.

        1. Clint Ward profile image60
          Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You won't kill any bad guys with an unloaded weapon, if a bad guy kicks in your door you won't have time to load it, you're defenseless.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, well, I don't live in fear that a bad guy will kick down my door.  We don't keep guns for the purpose of self-defense because we're not afraid.  You are the one who is afraid; why else would you feel the need to keep your gun loaded at all times?

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Do you have a fire extinguisher?

              If so, why?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sure, it's a common sense protection in case of fire, which is much more likely to happen than bad guys breaking down my door.

                Like I said previously, we have ways to protect ourselves that don't include keeping a loaded gun available at all times.  Our wonderful dog, Jack, who stands watch over the goats, also alerts us if any animal or human approaches, night or day.  Our guinea hens are good at that, too.  These are much more common sense measures for protection, in my opinion. We know someone is approaching long before they are close enough to break down the door.

                1. Clint Ward profile image60
                  Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I guess you can always throw a guinea hen at them. Most burglaries are committed during the day in rural areas.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Would you shoot someone over a TV set?  I wouldn't.  I don't consider my material items worth more than the life of a human being, burglar or not.  Besides, how did we suddenly go from bad guys breaking down the door to home burglaries?

                2. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So you only have a fire extinguisher out of fear, right?

                  Dogs are good for alerting, not so good for protection though.

                  Also, over 2 million home burglaries in a year, and only 300,000 or so fire-department responses to home fires... are you sure fires are more common?

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't know.  I haven't looked at statistics.  I've put out a fire in my own home that didn't require calling the fire department, so I still think (though I have no statistics to back it up) that a fire in the home (whether requiring a call to the fire department or not) is more likely than bad guys breaking down the front door (which is not quite the same as a home burglary now is it?).

  5. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 4 years ago

    Gun Murders in the US:  Of the 12,664 murders in 2011 reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 6,220 were committed with handguns — about 49 percent of the total report. Around three hundred murders involved rifles.

    Deaths from terrorism in same year:

    U.S. citizens worldwide killed as a result of incidents of terrorism: 17
    U.S. citizens worldwide injured as a result of incidents of terrorism: 14
    U.S. citizens worldwide kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism: 3

    http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/195556.htm

    Sort of gets the fragility in perspective.

    You could say US citizens are the greatest menace to each other.

  6. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Believe what you want, you're wrong. I sincerely believe that your postings come from projecting your own feelings of inadequacy. Means nothing, see?

    Since you can't be bothered by facts and statistics, of course you can only resort to ridiculing people... what else is there to discuss?

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ah, but see, you are willing to roll out statistic after statistic, many of them questionable, to try and convince people that more citizens owning and using guns for self-protection will make us safer.  Yet, you are unwilling to acknowledge that the NRA feeds that kind of thinking and that maybe, just maybe, your need to constantly defend and hype gun ownership as practically a necessity to keep yourself safe is really just you projecting your fears onto society at large. 

      I am completely on board with everyone being as self-reliant as possible.  Kudos to you for that.  However, you fanatically challenge any kind of regulation on guns and even argue that we should arm more of our citizens as a preventative measure against terrorism.  That is fringe thinking, a bit fanatical even, and yes, it is fueled by fear that is massaged and stoked by the calculating and greedy supportors of the NRA.

      I have a right to bring that up as part of the discussion, as I see it being the basis of pretty much the whole anti-gun regulation movement.  You can call it belittling if you want; I call it a legitimate point.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The statistics I show are not questionable. On the contrary, they have been lauded by highly reputable, anti-gun researchers as being some of the best studies ever conducted. The government's own numbers agree as well.

        Call it a legitimate point, it doesn't matter. You're wrong. Your entire argument is based on fallacious reasoning, false premises... it's full of holes.

        It's just your own uncertainties, built on the subconscious realization that your worldview has given up your own empowerment.

  7. profile image0
    Beth37posted 4 years ago

    I don't really have a one-way-or-the-other stance on guns. I do hope laws will be placed that will make it difficult for someone with a record to get a hold of them, but I also believe responsible citizens can own them if they choose... what I am surprised at is that Jaxson seemed to open this discussion calmly and rationally, just presenting his point of view and ppl got really immature really fast, with the exception of a reasonable few. I don't understand why ppl attack someone, just b/c they disagree with their perspective. Had Jaxson been a jerk about his point, I can imagine, but he really seemed like he was just in discussion mode to me.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My goal is to be completely self-reliant. I want to be able to take care of my family if we are attacked by criminals, if there is a major food shortage, power outages, water contamination, etc etc etc...

      I would much rather be able to deal with problems on my own rather than having to depend on somebody else. If you are dependent on somebody else, then you have lost control, lost empowerment. The world is getting to be too volatile, and there are too many new weapons that can disrupt humanity at large in a way never seen before.

      It doesn't hurt me at all to be prepared. In fact, it's beneficial even if things never go wrong.

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think your counterparts fear is that there might be others who feel like you, who may not be so level headed... or as good a shot. smile I understand your point of view, should there be threats like that that come into play, but maybe society as a whole feels more trusting of those they know have been trained. I don't think every one has as much faith that every one who owns a gun is to be trusted. Its very tricky. Maybe that's another good reason for laws to be in place that ppl would have to undergo training and certification before they could own a weapon.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's another thing that these two events have shown, is that the 'trained officials' very often aren't all that well trained, and sometimes they are downright dangerous(cops shooting the women in CA, for instance).

          It wasn't the police who found the second bomber. It was a citizen. Same thing with Dorner, they wouldn't have found him without help from citizens. We need people who are empowered.

          Think about Flight 93. That was citizens who weren't afraid to act. If they had just waited, we would have had another even worse tragedy.

          EDIT: civilians hit their target more often than police, and hit bystanders less than police, when they shoot at criminals.

      2. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Two questions:
        1. Does being completely self-reliant extend to growing your own food and living off the grid?
        2. Would you favor reducing military spending and putting money into education and training of citizens in defending themselves? Or do you see it as an 'every man for himself' endeavor?

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          1 - As much as possible. We're growing a ton of food right now, and when we move we are going to have chickens as well. Food, water, electricity can all be had cheaper with little/no reliance on anybody else, so even if things never go south it's beneficial.

          2 - I really wish we would reduce military spending. We're wasting way too much money, we should mostly just focus on defense and INTELLIGENT r&d. I'm more in favor of a complete reform of our education system rather than just throwing money at it, money isn't the problem. I would LOVE to have training programs for citizens... not just how to be safe around guns, we need citizens who can react. I've seen dozens of  people just standing around while someone was trapped in a car that was on fire. People aren't trained how to react in emergencies, so they don't react(or they panic).

          1. profile image0
            Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well it's interesting that it was in Boston where Paul Revere rode around calling two arms, two arms. Maybe some day it will be necessary for responsible citizens to be well trained to help support our armed forces... you obviously see that time as now. It's a sad state our world is in. I thank God for our armed forces... it seems like a high risk, low reward job... same for all our first responders.

            (And that's amazing that you are living off the land... congratulations.)

  8. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    How Guns are Advertised in America:  http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-ho … a-2012-12#

    Check out how ads used to focus on the features of the guns themselves.  Now, they focus on the purpose, and use fear and machismo as selling points.

    http://static.businessinsider.com/image/50d2b093ecad040b3c00000f-590/adam-lanza-brandished-a-bushmaster-ar-15-when-he-murdered-27-women-and-small-children-in-newtown-this-is-how-that-weapon-is-marketing-to-the-general-public-magazine-ads-equate-owning-the-gun-to-being-a-man.jpg

    http://static.businessinsider.com/image/50d23f33eab8ea884400000d-590/this-army-themed-ad-for-savage-arms-however-has-a-darker-undertone-the-ad-reads-one-shot-one-kill.jpg

    http://static.businessinsider.com/image/50d23f32eab8eac244000003-590/this-remington-ad-says-attention-politicians-over-5000000-sold-the-worlds-largest-army-aint-in-china.jpg

    http://static.businessinsider.com/image/50d23f366bb3f7ac54000006-590/but-other-ads-use-scare-tactics-this-ad-which-appeared-on-various-gun-blogs-urges-fathers-to-arm-their-daughters-claiming-its-their-best-protection-against-rapists-with-aids.jpg

    1. Clint Ward profile image60
      Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I bought a lot of guns in my day and have never seen those ads, I buy guns for me not for a man card or any other reason.

  9. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Here what happens when ordinary citizens try to play hero against someone with a gun who is hellbent on killing.
    It took 8 highly trained officers to stop this guy. How many armed citizens does that translate to?

    From ABC News
    By COLLEEN CURRY

    April 22, 2013

    Five people were killed Sunday night after a Seattle-area man shot his girlfriend and then confronted and killed three others who'd tried to stop him during a shooting spree. The gunman died in the subsequent confrontation with police.

    Police in Federal Way, Wash., said today that a 27-year-old man with a history of domestic violence used a handgun to shoot and kill his 24-year-old girlfriend, setting off a flurry of 911 calls from the apartment complex and drawing individuals out to see what was happening, according to Brian Wilson, chief of the Federal Way Police Department.

    Police did not release the names of the suspect or victims of his gunfire but said that it appeared the alleged killing stemmed from domestic conflict.

    When the suspect left his apartment, he was confronted by two men in the parking lot of the complex, Wilson said at a press conference today.

    The suspect shot and killed both men, and then went back to his apartment to retrieve a shotgun, Wilson said.

    The men were 23 years old and 47 years old. Police are still investigating what was said during the confrontation and whether the suspect knew the victims, Wilson said.


    After the burst of gunshots, two other residents of the apartment complex emerged from their units to see what was happening outside, and one instructed the other to call 911, Wilson said.

    The man who gave the instructions went back into his apartment, and the suspect allegedly shot him through his front door using a 500 pump shotgun. The victim, who was 62 years old, died of gunshot wounds.

    The individual who called 911 was not injured.

    The suspect entered into a stairwell in the apartment complex where police officers responding to the 911 call confronted him, but the suspect refused to comply with police orders, Wilson said.

    "Verbal commands were given by officers to that subject, the subject was not complying with the verbal commands, and given the fact he was armed, officers fired on that subject," Wilson said.

    The suspect dropped the shotgun and ran into the parking lot, chased by police. Officers found him on the ground there, moving toward a handgun, and fired on him again.

    In all, eight officers fired their weapons at the suspect during the confrontation. The suspect was killed in the gunfire, Wilson said.

    "This is one of the most dangerous type of calls for officers to respond to. Their training, their commitment, is remarkable," Wilson said.

    All the officers have been placed on administrative leave following the attack, which Wilson described as standard procedure for any law enforcement officer who discharges a weapon.

    The suspect had no previous criminal record but had a warning attached to his name in the Federal Way Police Department's computer system, alerting officers to the fact that he was known to carry weapons.

    He had permits for the weapons, Wilson said.














    Former Texas Justice Accused of 'Terroristic Threat,' Questioned in DA Murders Watch Video







    Virginia College Shooting Suspect Held Without Bail Watch Video



    After the burst of gunshots, two other residents of the apartment complex emerged from their units to see what was happening outside, and one instructed the other to call 911, Wilson said.

    The man who gave the instructions went back into his apartment, and the suspect allegedly shot him through his front door using a 500 pump shotgun. The victim, who was 62 years old, died of gunshot wounds.

    The individual who called 911 was not injured.

    The suspect entered into a stairwell in the apartment complex where police officers responding to the 911 call confronted him, but the suspect refused to comply with police orders, Wilson said.

    "Verbal commands were given by officers to that subject, the subject was not complying with the verbal commands, and given the fact he was armed, officers fired on that subject," Wilson said.

    The suspect dropped the shotgun and ran into the parking lot, chased by police. Officers found him on the ground there, moving toward a handgun, and fired on him again.

    In all, eight officers fired their weapons at the suspect during the confrontation. The suspect was killed in the gunfire, Wilson said.

    "This is one of the most dangerous type of calls for officers to respond to. Their training, their commitment, is remarkable," Wilson said.

    All the officers have been placed on administrative leave following the attack, which Wilson described as standard procedure for any law enforcement officer who discharges a weapon.

    The suspect had no previous criminal record but had a warning attached to his name in the Federal Way Police Department's computer system, alerting officers to the fact that he was known to carry weapons.

    He had permits for the weapons, Wilson said.

  10. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Oh, and careful PP, you're starting to use statistics. wink

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LOL, I used to be a data analyst for a transportation planning agency.  Statistics are useful when properly used.  You like to throw them out on the forums, and more than once when I've done a little digging I've found them to be lacking.  I really don't have the patience or care to spend the time to investigate all of your claims.  You obviously keep a lot of data at your fingertips, data that supports your position, of course.  Sometimes, the data you use is legitimate; often your statistics can be countered with better data. 

      In my current job, I do the marketing, but I have a budget.  Data tells me certain types of marketing work better than other types.  However, I must weigh the pros and cons of each type including investment in time and money, as well as variations in effectiveness due to economic, cultural, or religious characteristics of the area in which I work.  Statistics are a good starting point for decision making, but to rely upon them too much without regard to the human element will result in poor decisions and failure.

      Just my two cents about statistics.  ;-)

  11. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    The idea of owning a firearm as being the solution to a rectifying crime or a threat seems plausible but it does not work in every situation. Using a firearm even when one's life is threatened does not always go as portrayed by the movies in Hollywood. Every body is incapable of taking another person's life even when their own life is in danger. The United States military used to exclude those people who call themselves pacifist because the people claim they could not take another person's life.

    Usually it is not natural for people to want to take another person's life that is the reason for military training so that one can condition a person To Kill.

    What if the homeowner who is protecting themselves and property shoot at the intruder successfully striking them But what if one of those bullets traveled outside the home and struck a child playing in the yard.

 
working