So sad.

[Keith]

OK guys, lets not turn this thread into "Gun Wars"

You heard Randy, he's a 'Super Moderator" and can probably override me.

I am happy for people to discuss the potential domestic terrorist threat because it not only affects us all, but it will be here fro a long time. Any assistance or knowledge we can share without kicking shit our of each other is a bonus.

I have been advised recently that the subjects of Guns, Politics & Religion have been banned from many US websites. I would like to think that perhaps we're all grown up enough to be able to debate without rancour.

It's up to you...

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Well the real elephant in the room is Islam not guns. In my view Islam is not a religion but a political cult with the same ambition as Hitler, world domination.
I know, not politically correct but I have said it so ban me if you wish.

 

[Howard Jones]

I said this yesterday.

Tashfeen Malik, Mother in San Bernardino Massacre, Pledged Allegiance to ISIS Leader: Sources - NBC News

 

[Keith]

Well the real elephant in the room is Islam not guns. In my view Islam is not a religion but a political cult with the same ambition as Hitler, world domination.
I know, not politically correct but I have said it so ban me if you wish.

From your earlier post Pete, I too have noticed that American media have dropped the word "Christmas" from their reporting in favour of "holiday" but I'm happy to note that our own media are still reporting this as a "Christmas Party"

Pretty useless information in the scheme of things. The bullets still maim and kill whatever the occasion is labelled.

 

[Larry L.]

The certainity with which you say that is scary. You have absolutely no idea how a bunch of "armed citizens" opening fire in a theater or a mall or a work place will play out, and to assume it will always work out for the best is insane.

I just did a little "Googling". 'Found out multiple SHERIFFS and a police chief agree with my "scary" idea. Evidently, for whatever reason, they aren't as frightened about the prospects as you.

Here's the latest to join in; Ulster County, N.Y., Sheriff Paul Van Blarcum:

Sheriff encourages licensed gun owners to take up arms | On Air Videos | Fox News

Do you think maybe he may have an "idea how a bunch of "armed citizens" opening fire in a theater or a mall or a work place" might play out?

He joins the likes of Sheriff David Clarke, Milwaukee County, Wis...Sheriff Jimmy Harris, DeKalb Co., Ala...Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa Co., AZ...Sheriff Chuck Wright, Spartanburg Co., S.C...and Police Chief James Craig, Portland, Maine who are all calling for citizens to arm themselves these days.

There are probably others as well, but, Googling bores me rather quickly.

 

[Keith]

To be fair Larry, he doesn't say it's a solution but "maybe" it might help minimise casualties. He uses the term "maybe" quite a lot and what he's saying is that if citizens have a permit to carry by all means carry so no change to the status quo.

Do you think there is something to be gained for those citizens in areas that are licensed to CCW in having specific specialist training in light of the potential threat?

It would actually make some sense wouldn't it?

 

[Scott Calabro]

I'm at the range practicing with my P7M8 so much so the ammo costs are killin me:stunned:

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

From your earlier post Pete, I too have noticed that American media have dropped the word "Christmas" from their reporting in favour of "holiday" but I'm happy to note that our own media are still reporting this as a "Christmas Party"

Pretty useless information in the scheme of things. The bullets still maim and kill whatever the occasion is labelled.

I'm really talking about political correctness and pandering to minority's. Of course they were having a Christmas party and I'm pleased to see your media are calling it how it is. In my view not calling it Christmas because it may upset another religion or cult is letting that religion or cult have a small win, insignificant in the scheme of things but a win nevertheless.

 

[Keith]

Completely agree Pete. I have no idea who came up with this crap to start with. We've given a lot of ground but as far as I am concerned, not one more inch..:furious:

 

[Jack]

Ditto Scott, but a 1911 today.

 

[Scott Calabro]

Ditto Scott, but a 1911 today.

:thumbsup: gotta love the ACP

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

David, you are talking about one of the four worst cities in America for murder. President Obama's home town. Firearms murders in Chicago in 2014 were over 300, Chicago is a no firearms city by law, but only the bad guys have firearms, as they always will. The killings are mostly black on black, which I guess makes it ok for the politicians, because they don't do anything about it. They only time politicians care is if it's white on black, or police on black. Other than that, blacks can continue slaughtering each other and no one really seems to give a damn. So my point is, Chicago is a pretty bad representation of firearms in the US. But I really need to say that the apparently random hacking to death of a English soldier is just as appalling as a firearms murder, albeit the firearm is a bit more tidy.

 

[Keith]

Al please stay on topic which is the San Bernadino incident and matters arising..

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

yes sir, why didn't you tell David that?

 

[Jeff Young]

A friend of mine, a former Marine who did two tours in Iraq, said it best:

Today's "are you fucking kidding me?" gripe is the similarly ape-like logic of "we need widespread access and carrying of guns so that good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns." Certainly there are situations where armed citizens have thwarted or lessened mass shooting situations, like the principal in Pearl, MS that stopped a killer (only 2 student died and 7 were wounded). That was EIGHTEEN years ago.
But time and experience has shown that this is clearly the minority of cases. This year alone, we're at 350 mass (>4 people) shootings, which is roughly the # of fatal car accidents on TN roads in 2015. That's a HUGE sample size from which to draw statistical conclusions, and it's obvious that the bad guys with guns are prevailing. If all these good guys want to save the day, they've surely had their opportunities.
The problem is, in order to have enough guns at the ready to stop such situations, you would have to militarize every aspect of American life (as is the case in much of Israel). Does anyone think that having every teacher carry a handgun is the answer? Maybe we could have M-16s in all public places under safety glass, and when someone calls 911, they glass lifts up and whoever is nearby can grab it? At some point, guns become so prevalent that they create more violence that they deter. There's even evidence that we passed that point a long time ago, as the nation with more guns per capita than everyone else (but the social paradise of Yemen is moving up fast!). Again, not saying that a calm, armed citizen can't be a HUGE advantage in a shooting, just pointing out that the available evidence shows they are the exception, not the rule.
In fact, I have a carry permit and intend to carry it more and more often, especially this holiday season. But I've spent literally hundreds of hours mentally going over scenarios to train my mental memory to do things like considering the target's backdrop as well as my own (so we don't kill civilians with misses), looking for secondary shooters (no good pulling my gun to engage Shooter #1 if quiet #2 walks behind me and puts a round through my ear--this happened a few years ago when a husband and wife team of sovereign citizens opened fire in a Wal-Mart), spotting the # of magazines to see when the shooter needs to make a mag or weapon change, and avoiding funnels and pinch points. Many of those I served in the Army with have done the same, but again, this is the EXCEPTION, not the rule
I won't even get in to how excited law enforcement is about all these split-second deputies, I'll let my police friends do that. Let's just say no cop wants to walk into the OK Corral and have to guess which guys shooting are the Clantons are which are the Earps. Again, this isn't an argument to ban guns, just pointing out that saying that we need tons of guns for good-guy militias isn't a realistic, and doesn't advance a rational discussion of the issue.
Some folks don't think we need to discuss anything, that the status quo is what it is, and we can't change things with regulation, occasional accidents and shootings are the price of 2nd amendment freedom. I don't really know how to argue with someone who just shrugs at 100 gun-related deaths PER DAY, except to say they wouldn't feel that way if someone close to them died in such an accident or massacre. Even with almost 40,000 people dying each year, meaning hundreds of thousands of people are seeing someone they care about deeply die, the millions of grieving friends and families are a statistical drop in the bucket of our nation of 320 million.
At the rate we're going, with an average of more than a mass shooting per day and elementary school kids and the handicapped getting shot en masse, maybe in a few years every man, woman, and children will know somebody who has died from a bullet.
But do we really need to wait that long to try and do something?

 

[Jeff Young]

I just did a little "Googling". 'Found out multiple SHERIFFS and a police chief agree with my "scary" idea. Evidently, for whatever reason, they aren't as frightened about the prospects as you.

Here's the latest to join in; Ulster County, N.Y., Sheriff Paul Van Blarcum:

Sheriff encourages licensed gun owners to take up arms | On Air Videos | Fox News

Do you think maybe he may have an "idea how a bunch of "armed citizens" opening fire in a theater or a mall or a work place" might play out?

He joins the likes of Sheriff David Clarke, Milwaukee County, Wis...Sheriff Jimmy Harris, DeKalb Co., Ala...Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa Co., AZ...Sheriff Chuck Wright, Spartanburg Co., S.C...and Police Chief James Craig, Portland, Maine who are all calling for citizens to arm themselves these days.

There are probably others as well, but, Googling bores me rather quickly.

You're cherry picking, and note the repeated use of the word "Sheriff" -- generally folks who are the law enforcement officer for rural, socially conservative areas.

In fact, the two nationwide police chief and sheriff organizations are split on this, with police chiefs (of predominantly urban areas) want more gun control and the sheriffs in the sticks less.

Police chiefs, sheriffs divided over gun control measures - U.S. News

 

[Pat]

Interesting thread drift narrative on gun control. No mention of jihadists, ISIS, Al Qaeda, pipe bombs, knives, automobiles or passenger planes into buildings.

What solution is being proposed that would have stopped the massacre in San Bernadino? I didn't see one. Only a political anti-gun rant since a “crisis is a terrible thing to waste”. It is almost like Mr. and Mrs Farook aren't to blame here, it's GUN OWNERS. You want to stop gun violence, try enforcing the laws on the books. How many of the Chicago gang murders last week were committed with legal firearms? From bomb making to murder, Mr. and Mrs. Farook do not appear to have been particularly concerned about the statutory impact of their actions.

Right now the media and the Democratic party are working hard to morph the San Bernardino jihadist terrorism into a story about runaway gun violence in America. Bogus stats scream that daily mass shootings are rampant across the county. Certainly inner city drug fueled gang crime is, but places like Chicago, Detroit, Memphis and New Orleans thankfully aren't the norm. Neither are daily "elementary school kids and the handicapped getting shot en masse".
The fact that gun violence has been in a decades-long decline doesn’t count for much. Apparently neither does the fact we are under attack from radical Islam. I suspect mandating registrations to sell your hunting rifle to your nephew isn't going to change that.

The "gun violence" detraction is akin to the one where the Benghazi murders were pronounced the result of a YouTube video. It serves to detract from the truth and the failures we have had in attempting to control the jihad against us. We do so at our peril.

 

[Randy V]

With respect Randy, there are issues which should be able to be discussed and one of them is the very large elephant in all our rooms. I do not see any reason to curtail the debate as long as it is respectful to our community and complements the site.

Thus far we're doing OK. Ron entrusted me with the Paddock and I think, to a degree, I have a handle on it. We need to learn from each other across the world to defeat this evil. One thing is certain, as Paddock moderator I will not permit anything that I consider damages the site's reputation or normal usage.

I have been having chemo today so I have not been around for awhile, but I'm now back on the case and taking names!

See the bolded part above? I will agree to let the debating continue as long as this is observed.

FWIW, there are a number of great comments here but we need to try to not denigrate each other in the process...

Carry on Colonel...

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Interesting thread drift narrative on gun control. No mention of jihadists, ISIS, Al Qaeda, pipe bombs, knives, automobiles or passenger planes into buildings.

What solution is being proposed that would have stopped the massacre in San Bernadino? I didn't see one. Only a political anti-gun rant since a “crisis is a terrible thing to waste”. It is almost like Mr. and Mrs Farook aren't to blame here, it's GUN OWNERS. You want to stop gun violence, try enforcing the laws on the books. How many of the Chicago gang murders last week were committed with legal firearms? From bomb making to murder, Mr. and Mrs. Farook do not appear to have been particularly concerned about the statutory impact of their actions.

Right now the media and the Democratic party are working hard to morph the San Bernardino jihadist terrorism into a story about runaway gun violence in America. Bogus stats scream that daily mass shootings are rampant across the county. Certainly inner city drug fueled gang crime is, but places like Chicago, Detroit, Memphis and New Orleans thankfully aren't the norm. Neither are daily "elementary school kids and the handicapped getting shot en masse".
The fact that gun violence has been in a decades-long decline doesn’t count for much. Apparently neither does the fact we are under attack from radical Islam. I suspect mandating registrations to sell your hunting rifle to your nephew isn't going to change that.

The "gun violence" detraction is akin to the one where the Benghazi murders were pronounced the result of a YouTube video. It serves to detract from the truth and the failures we have had in attempting to control the jihad against us. We do so at our peril.

Veek, I completely agree with you, sorry for letting myself get dragged into the "gun" issue when we should be talking about radical Islam and the death of innocent people in San Bernardino.

 

[Keith]

That is indeed the point Al, thank you.

Randy, thanks for your input. I believe we all know what's what. Unfortunately, I cannot see how you can separate the 'gun debate' from the terrorist incident at San Bernadino. It is possible that a specifically trained armed 'Peoples Militia' may be a solution and it will be interesting to see what comes about as the result of the California tragedy.

But as Jeff say, do you really want to live your lives like this?

I'm going to ask a provocative question. Do any of you believe (hand on heart) that a terrorist cell, intent on a similar 'soft target' attack would be deterred by the possibility of the presence of armed citizens in a regular CCW situation? They are after all a nihilistic death cult so they have no fear of dying and in that respect they have a distinct advantage.

Notwithstanding the inherent dangers of the potential for 'blue on blue' can any current or former LEO or someone with military experience clearly state that a plethora of armed citizens would be a) a deterrent b) a solution or c) a deadly confusion to such a scenario?

Would there have to be 'rules of engagement' ? (Ask David about the crazy ROE in force in Northern Ireland during his tour).

I'm quite sure all of America is similarly doing a lot of soul searching looking for answers..

AS postcript, I have absolutely no doubt that the numbers of armed Police on Britain's streets will increase exponentially now. This is something I am genuinely worried about. Seriously. And it doesn't make me feel any safer. Quite the opposite in fact.