We're not in Kansas anymore, over the last 50 or so years radical Islam has drastically changed the lives of everyone in the world. In all types of travel, sporting events, New Years eve, marathons, food, drink, worship, and just about everything we do. We have sacrificed generations of our young and will continue to sacrifice them. We just saw the killing of people at a "Christmas" party. A celebration of joy and giving. The question is, are we going to allow these stone age assholes to dictate all that we do? Or is the world going to stop all the PC BS and do something about it? "Climate Change" isn't the greatest threat to the world as some ill informed nitwit just said, Radical Islam is.
So sad.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
- Status
...or, one other; d) simply a 'defense tactic'.
As regards; a) logic dictates nothing will deter the scum...b) the only guaranteed "solution" would be if all radical Muslims were to suddenly drop dead...and...c) 'deadly confusion' is a calculated risk. NO defense option/tactic/strategy comes devoid of it.
What other effective 'defense option(s)' might the citizenry employ as an immediate 'defense/counter measure' other than on-the-spot armed opposition??? I submit there really is none. If there is, I'd sure like to hear it. I'm open to suggestions...except for "shelter/secure in place". That's the modern day version of the 1950s "duck and cover" tactic, and it's just about as effective push-come-to-shove.
The unarmed 'fish-in-a-barrel' defense strategy/tactic currently being employed doesn't quite cut it for me...
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Try this for size:
The home front: So many people die annually from gunfire in the US that the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country. According to research by Politifact, there were about 1.4 million domestic firearm deaths in that period, compared with 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the Revolutionary War to Iraq.
By the way, I totally agree that the clear and present threat is Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL or whatever you want to call it. I have been going on for quite a few years - even on this website - of that no one can deny, Some of you probably thought I was off my head. Maybe I am but the threat is now huge and is affecting each and every one of us. Please tell me if I was wrong now.
The home front: So many people die annually from gunfire in the US that the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country. According to research by Politifact, there were about 1.4 million domestic firearm deaths in that period, compared with 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the Revolutionary War to Iraq.
By the way, I totally agree that the clear and present threat is Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL or whatever you want to call it. I have been going on for quite a few years - even on this website - of that no one can deny, Some of you probably thought I was off my head. Maybe I am but the threat is now huge and is affecting each and every one of us. Please tell me if I was wrong now.
I ask again: Other than an armed response initiated 'on-the-spot' by citizenry present, what other counter measure is available in a 'mass shooting' situation that might provide an e-f-f-e-c-t-i-v-e way to quickly neutralize/stop/end the attack and thereby limit the number of 'good guy' casualties?
No one is addressing that.
?????
No one is addressing that.
?????
Because it's unanswerable Larry, and due to the sheer randomness of these events and targets, not even your vision of an 'armed citizenry' comes even close to providing any measure of prevention or security. However, i could see a possible psychological effect as it might fool the people into feeling more secure.
Tell me Larry, (and others) discoūnting active service and LEOs, has anyone here actually fired a gun at another living person? (apart from tax collectors lol).
Tell me Larry, (and others) discoūnting active service and LEOs, has anyone here actually fired a gun at another living person? (apart from tax collectors lol).
Israel has far fewer gun deaths per 100,000 than the US, lots of people walking around armed. Armed people in schools.
'Totally agree. The 'armed citizens' proposal was suggested solely as a self-defense measure that would likely stop an attack quickly and thereby limit casualties.
I'm still asking for an effective 'option' in that regard.
As to "Tell me Larry...": Yes. Several. 'Nam.
Oh I'm not against the idea of an armed citizenry, just the effectiveness of it. Israel is not a good example as it's a state born out of war and on a war footing ever since. It's like second nature to them. In future years however, new generations are going to question living under those conditions and seek to confront it with a view to ending it. That may not come about as a result of armed confrontation but from a political settlement.
Scott, I can also cite many incidents of have-a-go citizens (as they're called here) tackling armed thugs in the UK, and they're not even armed! They amaze me to be honest, but thank God they do...
Scott, I can also cite many incidents of have-a-go citizens (as they're called here) tackling armed thugs in the UK, and they're not even armed! They amaze me to be honest, but thank God they do...
DISCOUNTING active service Larry. It's one thing firing at paper targets and quite another to shoot at another living person.
Anyhow, we're not going to come up with an answer here, but I wonder if this idea is being considered 'higher up'?
Radical Islamic terrorists couldn't care less about political 'settlements'.
I believe his point was armed defense gets the job done.
(Bear in mind, not all folks are physically able to go the 'hand-to-hand' route.)
Last edited:
A trigger is a trigger...a person is a person...a location is a location...shooting is shooting. 'Circumstances matter little as far as the 'bottom line' result is concerned.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Well just about everyone in Afghanistan is armed and people still get blown up by IED and suicide bombers.
The problem is complex and the bottlenecks start at the top of the bottle.
While you have a President who is clearly a sympathiser with Islam and spends his time either sitting on his hands or on the golf course nothing is going to change. I hasten to ad that our PM is no better.
Isis thinks we are weak and bombing them won't work unless it's David's bucket of light. The only way to wipe them out is troops on the ground with ROE they can work with.
Domestically I would call Islam a cult rather than a religion, stop their tax breaks, think about closing the Mosques, certainly deport all Muslims who are non citizens.
'Laugh all you want.
SO FAR no one else (including you, sir) has offered diddley in the way of an alternative, effective way to handle an attack the moment one begins.
I submit none will/can.
I've suggested much the same several times over the past few years....and was called an "Islamophobe", a "bigot", a "racist" and/or a "hater" each time I did. I also said we should not allow Muslims to immigrate post 9-1-1. I blew my stack when the idiot mayor of N.Y. (de Blasio) OUTLAWED surveillance of Mosques there. I ALSO oppose bringing in Syrian refugees for what SHOUD BE obvious reasons.
I've further opined we ought to actively target (as in 'hit squads'...ninja style or drones - whatever) not only terrorist LEADERSHIP where ever they're found, but also those who enable them (economically, materially, or in any other way) - no matter WHO they may be or WHERE they may be. Drones and black ops/special forces should be 'doing their thing' 24/7/365 no matter where/when terrorist targets are located...and all this "p.c." crap like leaflet dropping prior to bombings and not bombing oil truck convoys because the truck drivers are CIVILIANS is a total CROCK. As someone once said, "This is WAR...not a game of Cricket."
'Dunn' for now. 'Taking The Warden out for the evening...
leased:Wasn't laughing Larry, it was just my way of getting across how much I think America seems to have changed it's thinking since the 19th Century. Not.
I agree, as I have said there's no easy answer to it. We were debating on the value of ramping up armed citizens to counter it. I am doubtful, you are not.
QED.
I think dipstick believes that if he doesn't say terrorism or radical Islam, it's not!
- Status
Similar threads
