Putting a dent in terrorism

[Doc]

I was listening to a sheriff on TV explaining how and end to the constant attacks on the 2nd amendment could put a dent in the motivation of terrorists. It kind of made sense when you think about how these characters operate against a helpless population of defenseless sheep, waiting for slaughter. I have to wonder just how eager they would be to kill men, women and children if they received a hail of bullets whenever they tried. Yes maybe some crazy weirdo with a bomb strapped to their chest may not be deterred (Unless you detonate him at a safe distance with a well-placed bullet). But these freaks that like to shoot up movie houses and schools and restaurants might not think it was near as much fun if they started getting shot down as soon as they pulled the gun out. They all have visions of their victims cowering in corners or under desks or running panicked in terror. It sure would be nice to change those visions to their own certain death in a hail of gunfire. I think that would cool their enthusiasm for this sort of activity.

[philoshop]

The social justice warriors of the American Left would immediately call that an unfair fight. In my personal opinion, if the fight is fair you did something wrong in the preparation. If you're not trying to win, you shouldn't be fighting in the first place.

[Rattler]

There is absolutely no method used to stop a murderer that can be considered unfair.  Since when do we demand victims abide by rules when defending themselves against murderers?

[philoshop]

3 hours ago, Rattler said:

There is absolutely no method used to stop a murderer that can be considered unfair.  Since when do we demand victims abide by rules when defending themselves against murderers?

Since about eight years ago, Rattler. Actually since about 50 years ago, but that's a different subject altogether.

The policies of appeasement, pacification, and the overall wussification of the American populace is coming to a boil. I don't take it lightly, but a lot of people do.

[DirtTime]

I was listening to a sheriff on TV explaining how and end to the constant attacks on the 2nd amendment could put a dent in the motivation of terrorists. It kind of made sense when you think about how these characters operate against a helpless population of defenseless sheep, waiting for slaughter. I have to wonder just how eager they would be to kill men, women and children if they received a hail of bullets whenever they tried. Yes maybe some crazy weirdo with a bomb strapped to their chest may not be deterred (Unless you detonate him at a safe distance with a well-placed bullet). But these freaks that like to shoot up movie houses and schools and restaurants might not think it was near as much fun if they started getting shot down as soon as they pulled the gun out. They all have visions of their victims cowering in corners or under desks or running panicked in terror. It sure would be nice to change those visions to their own certain death in a hail of gunfire. I think that would cool their enthusiasm for this sort of activity.

I agree for the most part. But, when people panic judgement is not 100%, so aim may be off and innocent bystanders would still be a casualty of the situation. So it raises the question, "Could you live with yourself if you shot and killed an innocent person in haste?".
Please don't get me wrong here, I do agree many of the gun laws in most states are lame and do not help us protect ourselves or our families. Especially NY with his royal anus our governor and the state police making gun laws.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

[Doc]

10 hours ago, ....rob said:

 

 

I agree for the most part. But, when people panic judgement is not 100%, so aim may be off and innocent bystanders would still be a casualty of the situation. So it raises the question, "Could you live with yourself if you shot and killed an innocent person in haste?".
Please don't get me wrong here, I do agree many of the gun laws in most states are lame and do not help us protect ourselves or our families. Especially NY with his royal anus our governor and the state police making gun laws.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk
 

 

I guess it all depends on how you react under pressure. "Haste" should not be part of the situation. But I do understand that sometimes bad things happen even with the best intentions. But watching all the videos of people running in blind terror like a flock of sheep fleeing a pack of coyotes kind of made me a bit ill, as it is blatantly displayed that we don't have the slightest idea how to protect ourselves against today's evil. Just once I would like to see one of these terrorists have someone turn around and put a bullet between their eyes.

I think that conceal and carry privileges require a certain level of thought and responsibility and perhaps even mandatory training programs. But there is something disgusting about the fact that our current manner of protecting ourselves amounts to simply running like panicked animals or cowering in a corner waiting to be found and shot. 

[Rattler]

This is the end result of people adopting the attitude that it's the government's responsibility to protect you.  Ignorance is bliss, until the truth comes after you.

 

[Core]

I don't mean to be insensitive, but the orlando shooter took out 49 people by going into a club and having no resistance. How would his odds have changed had he entered a steakhouse in Texas?

[Adkhunter1590]

No such thing as a fair fight in my eyes. If your fighting, your fighting to win by all means necessary.

I agree we need to promote gun ownership and conceal carry. I think it will make attackers think twice about how they go about things. Even if there were mandated training courses to get your concealed license I'd be for it. I mean we already have that in NY but I mean for every state. I'd even be for everyone having to take a tactical/self defense course that focused on reacting to a armed attacker in a public setting. As the world becomes a darker place, who knows what could happen in 10, 20, maybe even 30 years from now. Could we see a foreign army attempt to invade our homeland? It's doubtful, but I'd sure like to see every citizen armed and ready to push back.

There's a lot of stories about regular day citizens putting down attackers, robbers and other thugs in either self defense or protecting others. Unfortunately our liberal media drowns these stories out and they are unheard by the majority.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

4 hours ago, Adkhunter1590 said:

 Even if there were mandated training courses to get your concealed license I'd be for it. I mean we already have that in NY but I mean for every state.

It's on a county by county basis. Many counties don't require it. 

[diplomat019]

 

16 hours ago, Core said:

I don't mean to be insensitive, but the orlando shooter took out 49 people by going into a club and having no resistance. How would his odds have changed had he entered a steakhouse in Texas?

Correct me if im wrong, but i dont think you are allowed to carry a firearm in a bar in texas.  So unfortunately the results of orlando might have been the same.  But i do get your point.   It is important to note that Florida is a very firearm friendly state as well.  That was just an unfortunate situation where a lunatic preyed in defenseless people.  

[diplomat019]

4 hours ago, Adkhunter1590 said:

No such thing as a fair fight in my eyes. If your fighting, your fighting to win by all means necessary.

I agree we need to promote gun ownership and conceal carry. I think it will make attackers think twice about how they go about things. Even if there were mandated training courses to get your concealed license I'd be for it. I mean we already have that in NY but I mean for every state. I'd even be for everyone having to take a tactical/self defense course that focused on reacting to a armed attacker in a public setting. As the world becomes a darker place, who knows what could happen in 10, 20, maybe even 30 years from now. Could we see a foreign army attempt to invade our homeland? It's doubtful, but I'd sure like to see every citizen armed and ready to push back.

There's a lot of stories about regular day citizens putting down attackers, robbers and other thugs in either self defense or protecting others. Unfortunately our liberal media drowns these stories out and they are unheard by the majority.

For your first point i disagree with a fair fight.  Geneva convention outlines what is a go for us.  We are not neanderthals like others who unfortunately inhabit the earth with us, so we dont act like them.   Thats why we are American and we are the best imo.  

 

 

As far as gun ownership switzerland seems to have figured something out that works for them. Their total population is a speck of dust compared to ours so it might be a little easier to navigate but there are some good qualities to it that makes it successful. 

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

 

[Core]

1 hour ago, diplomat019 said:

 

Correct me if im wrong, but i dont think you are allowed to carry a firearm in a bar in texas.  So unfortunately the results of orlando might have been the same.  But i do get your point.   It is important to note that Florida is a very firearm friendly state as well.  That was just an unfortunate situation where a lunatic preyed in defenseless people.  

That's why i said steakhouse; a restaurant

Switzerland is not really applicable to us because the US is basically in a cold civil war now. Each year more polarized. 

[diplomat019]

25 minutes ago, Core said:

That's why i said steakhouse; a restaurant

Switzerland is not really applicable to us because the US is basically in a cold civil war now. Each year more polarized. 

Got ya.  Im sure the guy would hve met a different fate in a steakhouse in florida as well.  Nobody messes with a good steak!!! 

[Rattler]

"One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section."

“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.

“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME.

That sense of social and civic responsibility is one of the reasons the Swiss have never allowed their guns to come under fire."

 

 

Switzerland is what America used to be in the 1950's.  America, being a feel good country with no foresight, decided gun owners can't be trusted.  It's about the culture of the people in the country.  Our culture of responsibility was destroyed by the government in order to gain control of the people's ability to resist, under the pretense of making us all "safer".

 

 

[DirtTime]

On 6/14/2017 at 4:43 AM, Doc said:

I guess it all depends on how you react under pressure. "Haste" should not be part of the situation. But I do understand that sometimes bad things happen even with the best intentions. But watching all the videos of people running in blind terror like a flock of sheep fleeing a pack of coyotes kind of made me a bit ill, as it is blatantly displayed that we don't have the slightest idea how to protect ourselves against today's evil. Just once I would like to see one of these terrorists have someone turn around and put a bullet between their eyes.

I think that conceal and carry privileges require a certain level of thought and responsibility and perhaps even mandatory training programs. But there is something disgusting about the fact that our current manner of protecting ourselves amounts to simply running like panicked animals or cowering in a corner waiting to be found and shot. 

Define todays "Evil"? Sorry.

[Adkhunter1590]

For your first point i disagree with a fair fight.  Geneva convention outlines what is a go for us.  We are not neanderthals like others who unfortunately inhabit the earth with us, so we dont act like them.   Thats why we are American and we are the best imo.  
 
 
As far as gun ownership switzerland seems to have figured something out that works for them. Their total population is a speck of dust compared to ours so it might be a little easier to navigate but there are some good qualities to it that makes it successful. 
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/
 

Last I checked the Geneva convention has absolutely nothing to do with fighting fair or defining how we fight. It outlines how prisoners, civilians, injured soldiers and others are treated when not acting in hostile manners. It also only applies during a legit "war". So if war is not technically declared, it doesn't apply.
I think you might need to freshen up on history. We have fought wars using nasty and probably what you would call "savage", tactics. How many japs did our marines burn to death in those caves and tunnels? How about those napalm drops in Vietnam? War is nasty and no one is fighting fair, everyone fights to win. To get Japan to surrender we slaughtered around 200 thousand of their non combatant civilians for petes sake. I'm not sure where you get off saying we as Americans are innocent. If you add up how many people we've killed in all our wars, I'd bet you'd find us at the top of the list or damn well near it.

And let's not forget how we built this country by slaughtering the Indians and taking their land. It's funny how everyone forgets our savage history and likes to think because we are such a rich and well rounded country that we must be better than everyone and do no wrong.

[Doc]

3 hours ago, ....rob said:

Define todays "Evil"? Sorry.

Lol ..... I kind of thought that the title of this thread and all the replies kind of covered that definition. But for purposes of this discussion, I use the term "evil" as describing the random killing of school children, and other innocents based on religious fanaticism, mental derangement, and now we can include political party affiliation.

[diplomat019]

Adk   are you ok with doing anything and everything to win as long as it isn't technically declared a war?  I took your original reponse as doing anything you want without following any rules to win.  You said i needed a refresher on history    So maybe you can clarify your comment   What does it mean to you when you say win by all means necessary?

 

You recited the Geneva convention saying i was wrong, yet cited examples of atrocities committed against civilians in your response   Which seems like you support my statement about following its guidelines  

 

 

 

 

Did you read the article i posted about gun ownership in Switzerland?    Your original comment and my original response on fighting a war was just a small portion. I don't know why you went off on a huge tangent about that. The meat and potatoes of your post was about gun ownership and the article I put up was good. What did you think about it 

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by diplomat019

[Rattler]

11 hours ago, Adkhunter1590 said:

I think you might need to freshen up on history. We have fought wars using nasty and probably what you would call "savage", tactics. How many japs did our marines burn to death in those caves and tunnels?

We didn't burn them to death until they fired machine guns at our Marines to kill them.

 

How about those napalm drops in Vietnam?

This was done to stop the enemy from attacking the US soldiers with mortars and rocket fire from the trees.

 

War is nasty and no one is fighting fair, everyone fights to win. To get Japan to surrender we slaughtered around 200 thousand of their non combatant civilians for petes sake.

This was done to prevent loss of millions of America soldiers if we needed to invade.  We offered Japan the option of surrender telling them exactly what would happen if they didn't, TWICE!  They refused, TWICE!

 

 

I'm not sure where you get off saying we as Americans are innocent. If you add up how many people we've killed in all our wars, I'd bet you'd find us at the top of the list or damn well near it.

You better not make this bet with anyone, because the US is far down the list of countries that have killed many millions of people during wars, their enemies as well as their own people.  We have killed in war to defend ourselves, but are innocent of unjustified murder.

And let's not forget how we built this country by slaughtering the Indians and taking their land. It's funny how everyone forgets our savage history and likes to think because we are such a rich and well rounded country that we must be better than everyone and do no wrong.

When the Pilgrims first came to the new world, they came in peace to find freedom of religion.  Things went well for a few years, until the natives chose hostility and started attacking and killing the white people, without provocation either.  The native Americans were hostile to other tribes also.  War was part of their culture and was not necessary in most instances.  It was more like today's gang culture than a civilized culture.  They were peaceful among themselves, but often brutal to anyone else.  Treaties were signed with whites that were broken by the natives.  They also were often the first to start the hostility against the whites.  The history of the Indians after whites arrived is nothing like what is usually taught in this land.  Whites didn't come to the new world to kill and pillage.  They migrated here just as they migrated elsewhere.  Of course every native people will resist that migration if they feel it's a threat, but not all go to war and some are strong enough to stop it.  The Indians were slaughtered in a war they chose to fight and were just as ruthless as any enemy ever was.  They chose war over peace.  They made a bad choice and lost.  The unique thing about America is, it chooses to do the right thing, which many countries do not, but sometimes things go wrong.  In that respect, we are better than most others.

 

 

 

[Adkhunter1590]

Adk   are you ok with doing anything and everything to win as long as it isn't technically declared a war?  I took your original reponse as doing anything you want without following any rules to win.  You said i needed a refresher on history    So maybe you can clarify your comment   What does it mean to you when you say win by all means necessary?
 
You recited the Geneva convention saying i was wrong, yet cited examples of atrocities committed against civilians in your response   Which seems like you support my statement about following its guidelines  
 
 
 
 
Did you read the article i posted about gun ownership in Switzerland?    Your original comment and my original response on fighting a war was just a small portion. I don't know why you went off on a huge tangent about that. The meat and potatoes of your post was about gun ownership and the article I put up was good. What did you think about it 
 
 
 

Never said I was ok with Doing anything because war wasn't declared. I was filling you in on how the Geneva convention actually works. It holds no water unless war is declared, wasn't an opinion, just a fact.

Let me clarify. I am absolutely for us doing anything we need to do to win against enemy combatants. That is not saying blow up schools full of children. I'm talking against military personnel. If we have to blow them up, burn them, poison them, i don't really care what it is. We fight to win and sometimes it's going to take drastic measures.

You brought up the Geneva convention saying that it is what the rules are during battle. Which is false. The Geneva convention has nothing to do with how we kill our enemies. It has everything to do with how we treat prisoners, wounded, civilians and everything else not display hostile intentions during war time. I am all for the Geneva convention and its purposes. While I may believe that fighting isn't fair and we should do what we have to do to win, when the dust settles and the battle is over, there is no reason for brutality against anyone. Which is the purpose of the Geneva convention.

[Adkhunter1590]

 

Did you have a point in any of those responses? I never disputed the reasoning behind the things we've done, just reminded someone above that we have used some down right harsh tactics and weapons to stop an enemy. The issue brought up was that we supposedly don't participate in such acts, which is a lie. We have and we will continue to do so to protect our soldiers and citizens.

As far as the Indians and all that go...your missing the point completely. The pilgrims initial intentions mean absolutely nothing. It doesn't negate the fact of what we did. I don't blame the Indians for fighting back and trying to wipe us out. We were seen as foreign invaders. But we did what needed to be done to begin a new country and civilization. To say that we are innocent just because the Indians started the fight is a bunch of bologna.

[Adkhunter1590]

O and rattler. If you believe that our government doesn't participate in what you would call unjustified murder, you really need to pull your head from the sand. We have the CIA around for a reason. The secrets we hold and the people of power that our government agencies remove from power for our own self interests is going on every day. We finance coups, and support groups that side with us. Maybe our troops are not rounding up people to execute, but you better bet your bottom dollar we pay for a lot of that to happen all over the world.

I love this country and what we stand for. But I am not a fool and know there is plenty of dirty work that needs to be done that the public doesn't want to know about or hear about. We outlaw advanced interrogation tactics on US soil, no biggie, we just transport the prisoners to another country and do whatever the hell we need to do. Just so our politicians can save face here and home and tell you how wonderful and nice we are.

[DirtTime]

21 hours ago, Doc said:

Lol ..... I kind of thought that the title of this thread and all the replies kind of covered that definition. But for purposes of this discussion, I use the term "evil" as describing the random killing of school children, and other innocents based on religious fanaticism, mental derangement, and now we can include political party affiliation.

Glad you found that amusing. I find it repulsive that to may people these days don't get the full on definition of terrorism.

Posted this before, Guess you missed it:

 

Quote

 

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/

noun

 

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

 

 

The attack on Republicans on a baseball field was an act of terrorism! You all keep looking at foreign issues, and forget we have home grown morons right here.

You can't stop terrorism unless you know where it's coming from. The problem is now is we have it coming at us from all sides. 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, ....rob said:

Glad you found that amusing. I find it repulsive that to may people these days don't get the full on definition of terrorism.

What I found amusing was your question, the answer to which I figured was self evident given the content of this thread. You asked me to define "today's evil" and I did define it as used in my reply.