Jump to content

Firearms/self Defense Discussion


Recommended Posts

I'll start out with the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC rt., Gunsite Owner, Originator of the "New Style":


Rule One of Gunfighting-(aka surviving shitty life taking situations): Have a gun.


Feverent conviction that any group of persons protecting themselves with self defence tools, firearms included, as part of their multi-faceted defense will not be bashed, taken advantage of forcefully, injured or killed as seen in the recent mass murder on the VT campus.


Is incumbent on same individual to train, recieve instruction in and how to use, be aware of, and practice, practice, train, and practice more the skills of awareness of self, placement, situation and excape as well the hard arts of actually using chemicals, edged weapons and fireams.


Will futher stipulate that there is no easy set of answers for ALL situations, however those who train and stay alert and awake even in supposedly safe situations are those that live when others do not. When the Time happens those persons will respond with reason and ability rather than fear.


It is my stringent opinion that those who depend on the State, emergency cell calls, Emergency Services do what JPFO calls "Dial 911 and Die".


Hoplophopes as far as daFatman is concerned ARE the problem, giving their voice to politicians and groups calling for 'unilateral disarmament" in the face of those who have no intent of living peacefully, preferring to steal, rape, pillage and murder.

Cowering behind the 'skirts of the State', expecting Police to protect you is an act of moral timidity unsupported by Law.


Those unarmed by Governments are murdered. Any of we who are not of the greater majority religion or interest group, when dis-armed are simply bait for those who are armed and wish to inflict control over us.


Religion and Government kills. Best most of we might do is blend in, try not to look or act *different* than the majority of varied cultists, sectarian and others who have commandments from their Goobers or gods to make the world more pure..


Oft that resistance and non-obedience comes from our skills in avoiding being meat for whatever grinder is there.


I have zero pity on those who refuse to defend themselves, or believe their agents of Government have their security as a priority.


Certainly not unwilling to learn, however I have had opportunity to work and travel most of the globe. Have seen most kinds of 'government' (and in some places non-government) in action. My preferences and convictions are from living them. Those who wish to argue with me may do so, I invite that discussion.

Be prepared to contra-discuss with fact and opinion, as I won't hold back on yours.


"Guns Save Lives!"



1310 26Apr2007


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Grandpa Harley


  • nivek


  • Amanda


  • Ramen666


The power of the "little people"


by Claire Wolfe


"Why do 100 million (or 80 million, or 50 million, or whatever) gun owners allow themselves to be terrorized by such a small band of thugs? (2300 is the number of ATF employees dedicated to infringing on the Second Amendment.) I'm sure if you asked around the answers would range anywhere from simple ignorance, arrogance, or apathy ('They'll never come for my trap gun') to terror ('Yeah, but those 2300 have the whole fedgov behind them' or 'Yeah, but when even a dozen of those bastards come after you, you're outnumbered'). In either case, the ATF -- and the whole brutal, unconstitutional, control-freaking federal government wins while we lose. Just because we don't exercise our own obvious power." (04/25/07)




Shoes, shooters and shampoos


by Phil Maymin


"Five and a half years ago, Richard Reid boarded a flight from Paris to Miami and tried to detonate explosives in his shoes. Now we all walk in socks on dirty airport carpets, spreading germs and getting sick. Last year, 24 people were arrested, and 16 eventually charged, with trying to detonate liquid explosives. Now we all measure our shampoos and perfumes by the ounce. Two weeks ago, an English major at Virginia Tech shot and killed 32 people, injuring 29 others, before committing suicide. The New York Times immediately called for more gun control laws. It's a natural, instinctive reaction. Never mind that guns were already banned at Virginia Tech. Never mind that another deadly shooting four years ago and a hundred miles to the west was stopped by students who ran to their cars to get their own guns. Never mind that seven years before that, an assistant principal in Mississippi got a handgun from his car to successfully stop a shooter. Never mind that reportedly all school shootings over the past decade that ended abruptly were stopped because a potential victim had a gun. In times of tragedy, logic gets thrown out the window. It's an empirical fact that gun-control laws kill, because they are effectively victim-disarmament laws." (04/26/07)




They never learn

American Spectator

by Robert Levy


"'What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage.' So said the New York Times in its predictable but wrongheaded editorial the day after the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Anti-gun advocates, however noble their motives, help create the environment in which horrors like Virginia Tech occur. ... Ironically, Tech's governing board had approved in June 2005 a violence prevention policy reiterating the school's ban on students, employees, or visitors -- even those properly licensed -- from bringing handguns onto campus. At the Virginia Tech press conference after the slaughter of 32 defenseless people, the university's president cautioned that it wouldn't be possible to have police guard every classroom and dorm. What he omitted was this cold, hard fact: By making the university a 'gun free zone,' his administration and the state legislature had fostered a climate in which ubiquitous police would be necessary." (04/25/07)




The legal gun won this fight

Plain Dealer

by Kevin O'Brien


"Arthur Buford is dead, and that's a sad thing. Arthur had his whole life ahead of him. He was just a kid, after all -- a 15-year-old freshman at John F. Kennedy High School. What he didn't know, as he approached Damon Wells' house in southeast Cleveland on Saturday night, was that his whole life consisted of just a few more seconds. Arthur had a gun, which he and another youngster apparently thought would give them the power to take something from Wells, who was standing on the front porch. Whatever Arthur's plan was, it unraveled. It didn't account for the possibility that the guy who looked like an easy mark would have permission from the state of Ohio to carry a concealed weapon, or that he would bother to arm himself just to walk to the neighborhood store and back. Arthur's plan depended on catching Wells off-guard. But Wells wasn't off-guard. He had a plan of his own, against the day when someone like Arthur might come along. Wells' plan was to avoid becoming a crime victim, and that's how Arthur ended up dying of several gunshot wounds to the chest. Wells hasn't given The Plain Dealer much more than monosyllables, and I don't blame him. What would he say? That he's sorry he was prepared? That he's sorry he defended himself?" (04/25/07)




VT case underscores importance of the Second Amendment

Liberty For All

by GOA staff


"Alarming new details about Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui underscore the importance of a citizen's individual right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said today. 'There were abundant warning signs that Cho posed a serious threat to the campus community,' said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, 'yet here he was running loose and committing mayhem.'" (04/25/07)




The lesson of Virginia Tech

Future of Freedom Foundation

by Sheldon Richman


"The lesson from the horrors at Virginia Tech is that no one can really, fully delegate to another his right to and responsibility for self-defense. You may feel the municipal or campus police are looking out for you, but no police force can guarantee to be where you need it when you need it. There's only one person sure to be on the scene when you are attacked: you." (04/25/07)




VT shooting reveals America's new "at risk" group

Acton Institute

by Anthony B. Bradley


"As Virginia Tech students limp through the rest of the Spring semester, we are all pondering America's exposed imperfections. Free markets have given Americans an unprecedented level of wealth but prosperity, detached from a commitment to human dignity, does not ensure social harmony. Sadly, the perpetrators in the Virginia Tech and Columbine tragedies shared a deep sense of alienation, isolation, marginalization, and victimization by the mainstream and shared a hatred for the children of affluence. There is mounting evidence that we are faced with a new reality in America: educated, middle-calls [sic] kids represent a new 'at risk' group, as both perpetrators and victims of peer-related violence." (04/25/07)




Scofflaws for the public safety?


In the wake of last week's Virginia Tech killing spree, J.D. Tuccille observed that "[p]eople are at their most vulnerable in those places that pride themselves on disarming residents and visitors" -- and suggested that perhaps " it's time that those of us who care about our safety stop being so solicitous of rules that put us at risk."


For some reason, that got me thinking about past libertarian "guerilla theatre" actions like the Manhattan Libertarian Party's "Guns for Tots" program ...


... What would it take to mount a nationwide campus propaganda effort, encouraging students to carry whether their educrat overseers like it or not? And would such an effort be a good idea?





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good articles, fatman :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great stuff, kevin. I have generally stayed out of the discussion about firearms and gun control because I'm not American. Canadians have some weird gun control laws, and I think that Harper (our PM) vowed to make it harder to obtain handguns after last years shooting near Christmas time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gents, thanks. There is so much more to the firearms issues than the actual chuck of steel, wood, and assorted man-mad attachments.


What I would like to show via this thread that where guns, while tools that do indeed work just as designed, toss projectiles downrange, hopefully with accuracy, are of net positive benefit to "Polite Societies" (ref: RAH).


Discussion with contra-positive use arguments welcomed, this is not the "OMFG GUNZ r K00l BEEotTCH!!ONEonE!!111!" thread..

If someone or -ones has an argument they wish to drag into here, it'll be discussed.


My strong RKBA/2A stance is a "conviction", an ideal in which I would die before changing. Have a lot of preferences, things I prefer and will change given opportunity.


Guns and their holding, use and utility to a Free People is and ideal that is being siphioned from the traditional Occidental, the Citizen Soldier, called on occasion to protect Home, save lives, keep order when the obvious Powers are unable or -willing to do so.





Scotland: A Model for the Rest of Us

by Rob Blackstock


After the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech, it is time that we turned to an older, more civilized country as a role-model. I speak, of course, of Scotland. Scotland has long since evolved beyond such displays of violence as we saw in Blacksburg this past week.


A United Nations report has labeledScotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.


The reason why is obvious: on March 13, 1996, a lone gunman entered the Dunblane, Scotland school gym and killed 16 children and their teacher. Within the next year handguns were made illegal in Britain bringing an end to gun violence in that ancient land.


The ban has had no discernible effect on gun crime, which has continued a steady rise dating back more than 25 years and which accounted for some 4,000 injuries in the UK last year [2006]. Immediately after the ban, the number of shootings actually went up and has stayed up, though the homicide rate, which is relatively low, has been almost unaffected. In Scotland, for instance, the rate of about eight killings a year by guns has remained the same despite the Dunblane ban.


Bravo for the Brits! Without guns, people are now safe to walk the streets.


[Dr. Ian] Holland and his colleagues operate on someone in Glasgow an average of every six hours, every day of the year. They try to fix the damage done by knives, razors, bats, fists, kicks and, very occasionally, innocent accidents. More than a thousand patients are sent to maxillofacial surgery every year as a result of violence in Glasgow alone – and the figure is rising. Only a fraction is reported to the police.


When will we Americans realize that the only way to make law-abiding people safe is to take away everyone’s guns?


Early indications, in the west [of Scotland] at least, suggest [crime statistics] will be up again in 2006-07, at least for murder – the easiest violent crime to count. There were 60 murders in Strathclyde between April and December 2006, 19 more than in the last nine months of 2005. Officially, reported attempted murders were up too – to nearly 300.


Without the guns, criminals are no longer able to hurt the innocent. Gang violence will come to an end.


[in Scotland, a] crackdown on the sale of swords has been launched as part of a campaign to tackle knife crime and violence….


The measures are the latest steps from the Scottish Executive to curb the problem of knife crime….


[Justice Minister Cathy] Jamieson said: "Knife-carrying is all too prevalent in some communities, particularly in the west of Scotland, and has cut short and scarred too many young lives.


"In these areas police, doctors and law-abiding citizens have seen the damaging effects of swords, including samurai swords, being wielded on the streets. "It is simply far too easy at present for these weapons to be bought and sold."


Other parts of the plan brought in under the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act doubled the maximum penalty for carrying a knife to four years, gave police the unconditional power to search someone they suspect of carrying a weapon and increased the minimum age for buying a knife from 16 to 18.


[Detective Chief Superintendent] John Carnochan, head of the police's violence reduction unit, hailed the measures as "another major step forward in the fight against knife crime and violence". More than half the murders in Scotland each year are carried out with knives or other sharp weapons.


True, law-abiding people including women and the elderly will no longer have the means to defend themselves from the young, violent criminal once all guns are confiscated, but those people will no longer have a need for self-defense. Without the guns, there will be no violence from which to be protected.


3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.


Scotland has shown us all, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that removing guns solves the underlying problem. Today, Scotland is once more a picturesque land where you and your mates can gather for a peaceful pint at the local pub.


Glasses and bottles face being banned from Edinburgh's pubs and clubs under plans to tackle the soaring number of violent attacks fuelled by drink….


The move comes after the number of glass and bottle attacks in the city soared by 40 per cent last year….


A similar ban is about to be rolled out across Glasgow….


So allow me to raise a glass to my ancestral people, the Scots, and to say thank you. Thank you for showing us the result of outlawing guns. Peace, serenity and culture.


The machetes are worst. As heavy as they are sharp, they cleave cheeks and split jaws – mash faces. Victims never look the same again, their twisted smiles revealing the true scale of Scotland's toll of violent crime.


April 27, 2007


Rob Blackstock [send him mail] teaches economics at Louisiana Tech University and is the Senior Economist for American Economic Services.


Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com


Links referenced within this article


Rob Blackstock



http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=htt...title=Scotland: A Model for the Rest of Us&topic=political_opinion

A United Nations report


The ban has had no discernible effect on gun crime,


[Dr. Ian] Holland and his colleagues


Early indications


In Scotland, a


3 per cent of Scots


Glasses and bottles


The machetes are worst.


send him mail



Find this article at:


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Via YouTube, Mrs. Hupp's testimony of her experience with the mass murder in Killeen, Tx. I cannot tell her story in my words better than she does in her own.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem with guns... they only seem dangerous when people who believe in a god have them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem with guns... they only seem dangerous when people who believe in a god have them...


Gramps I worry more about folks with "fire in their eyes, rope in their hands, holstered guns, and God's word in their ears" of any sect or creed anymore. Read and see things like the Phelps-Roper families, and various other denominational "extremes" and I wonder if

Robert Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100" is more a possibility than not.



Note below, seems even in beautiful, usually calm New Zealand the goblins are out:


New Zealand: Home invasion victim claims self-defence

Stuff [New Zealand]


"'Hurry up, please,' Marie Rangihuna begs the police telephonist. 'Oh my god! What's going on?' 'We are on our way,' the woman telephonist calmly replies. The recorded emergency call -- played in the Christchurch District Court today -- includes the sound of a shotgun blast just outside the door of the bedroom where Miss Rangihuna is sheltering after three men have kicked and smashed their way into her Linwood house through the front door. No one was hurt by the shotgun blast, but it has led to a trial before Judge David Saunders and a jury where self-defence is the sole issue. On trial is Deryck Joseph Morgan, 23, who fired the shot. He was a visitor at the house in Tuam Street on May 6. He has denied charges of firing the shotgun with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and unlawfully possessing the sawn-off shotgun and ammunition. 'He was acting in self-defence, not only of himself but also of others in the house that night -- a baby, a mother, a grandmother and another visitor,' said defence counsel Serina Bailey. " (04/26/07)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cho Seung-Whatever

The Free Liberal

by Jonathan David Morris


"Some people would have you believe Cho did what he did as a product of his environment. The other day, a friend sent me an article which blamed video games and anti-depressants, calling this killer the product of 'cultural brainwashing.' I guess that's possible. On the other hand, I've taken anti-depressants and played lots of video games. The only things I've ever shot were a clay pigeon and a clown with an open mouth. Then there's the argument that Cho couldn't've killed all those people if only guns didn't exist, or weren't available. This argument is retarded. Guns don't have some magical, mystical, life-destroying power. They only have the power that human beings give them. It would be wrong to blame Cho's actions on our society. Society didn't turn Cho into a cold-blooded killer; Cho turned Cho into a cold-blooded killer." (04/26/07)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem with guns... they only seem dangerous when people who believe in a god have them...


Gramps I worry more about folks with "fire in their eyes, rope in their hands, holstered guns, and God's word in their ears" of any sect or creed anymore. Read and see things like the Phelps-Roper families, and various other denominational "extremes" and I wonder if

Robert Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100" is more a possibility than not.



Note below, seems even in beautiful, usually calm New Zealand the goblins are out:


New Zealand: Home invasion victim claims self-defence

Stuff [New Zealand]


"'Hurry up, please,' Marie Rangihuna begs the police telephonist. 'Oh my god! What's going on?' 'We are on our way,' the woman telephonist calmly replies. The recorded emergency call -- played in the Christchurch District Court today -- includes the sound of a shotgun blast just outside the door of the bedroom where Miss Rangihuna is sheltering after three men have kicked and smashed their way into her Linwood house through the front door. No one was hurt by the shotgun blast, but it has led to a trial before Judge David Saunders and a jury where self-defence is the sole issue. On trial is Deryck Joseph Morgan, 23, who fired the shot. He was a visitor at the house in Tuam Street on May 6. He has denied charges of firing the shotgun with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and unlawfully possessing the sawn-off shotgun and ammunition. 'He was acting in self-defence, not only of himself but also of others in the house that night -- a baby, a mother, a grandmother and another visitor,' said defence counsel Serina Bailey. " (04/26/07)




NZ has a serious Maori Gang problem... although I don't know of a legitimate use of a sawn-off. It's a waste of a fine piece of engineering and all but useless for hunting unless your prey has only two legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a little wee problem with your use of the word "prey', Grandpa...

NZ has a serious Maori Gang problem... although I don't know of a legitimate use of a sawn-off. It's a waste of a fine piece of engineering and all but useless for hunting unless your prey has only two legs.

We unwashed colonists in the USA who believe in the right to defend one's own life don't think of ourselves as "predators", and if we would have to shoot a human being that is obviously threatening ourselves or our families, the very last thing we would want to think of, is that that person on the other end of the dispatched hunk of lead is "prey". Just for clarification purposes, you understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a nice, enlightened opinion on how to settle we 'murican savages and our guns...



The disarming of America




Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.


LAST week's tragedy at Virginia Tech in which a mentally disturbed person gunned down 32 of America's finest - intelligent young people with futures ahead of them - once again puts the phenomenon of an armed society into focus for Americans.


The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear last week is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands.


When people talk about doing something about guns in America, it often comes down to this: "How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there."


Because I have little or no power to influence the "if" part of the issue, I will stick with the "how." And before anyone starts to hyperventilate and think I'm a crazed liberal zealot wanting to take his gun from his cold, dead hands, let me share my experience of guns.


As a child I played cowboys and Indians with cap guns. I had a Daisy Red Ryder B-B gun. My father had in his bedside table drawer an old pistol which I examined surreptitiously from time to time. When assigned to the American embassy in Beirut during the war in Lebanon, I sometimes carried a .357 Magnum, which I could fire accurately. I also learned to handle and fire a variety of weapons while I was there, including Uzis and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.


I don't have any problem with hunting, although blowing away animals with high-powered weapons seems a pointless, no-contest affair to me. I suppose I would enjoy the fellowship of the experience with other friends who are hunters.


Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.


Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.


It would have to be the case that the term "hunting weapon" did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.


All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.


Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.


The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.


Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."


The "gun lobby" would no doubt try to head off in the courts the new laws and the actions to implement them. They might succeed in doing so, although the new approach would undoubtedly prompt new, vigorous debate on the subject. In any case, some jurisdictions would undoubtedly take the opportunity of the chronic slowness of the courts to begin implementing the new approach.


America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.


There could conceivably also be a rash of score-settling during hunting season as people drew out their weapons, ostensibly to shoot squirrels and deer, and began eliminating various of their perceived two-footed enemies. Given the general nature of hunting weapons and the fact that such killings are frequently time-sensitive, that seems a lesser sort of issue.


That is my idea of how it could be done. The desire to do so on the part of the American people is another question altogether, but one clearly raised again by the Blacksburg tragedy.


Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the primary Legal list I mod and participate with. Here in American the "Experts" are killing far too many of their protected with bad/wrong information, uncertain sources, and even lying agents and affidavits for the Warrants.


Do feel free to download the Cato Institute .pdf file listed, it will give you one hellova'n interesting insight to why we truly are all on our own for Self Defence.









Wrong Door Overkill - The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America



I think you're readers will be interested in this 100 page white

paper that they can download for free at the below address. Very

timely I believe. This happened to me a week ago today RDF


Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America


by Radley Balko, a policy analyst specializing in civil liberties

issues and is the author of the Cato study, "Back Door to

Prohibition: The New War on Social Drinking."


Executive Summary


Americans have long maintained that a man's home is his castle and

that he has the right to defend it from unlawful intruders.

Unfortunately, that right may be disappearing. Over the last 25

years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian

law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use

of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons

and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work. The most common use of

SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced,

unannounced entry into the home.


These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate,

are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and

wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes

invaded while they're sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed

paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.

These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent

drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The

raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong

residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and

injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers,

children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.


This paper presents a history and overview of the issue of

paramilitary drug raids, provides an extensive catalogue of abuses

and mistaken raids, and offers recommendations for reform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an observation, for a 'First World' country, the US seems to have a very fortress mentality. Living on a tiny island off the coast of continental Europe, you'd think that would be a British mind set...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nivek, after participating with you on a thread quite awhile ago, about gun ownership, I did acquire one. However, IDK, there is something about them that scares me. I haven't even looked to see how to load it, much less taken lessons yet.


But I will say this. I have a little bungalow in the city and a little cabin in the country. Here in the city, no one has a gun. Really... I bet less than one out of twenty homes have guns in them, and those that do probably only have one. Yet, at my place in the country... EVERYONE has a gun, usually every house has quite a few of them.


Now here's my point. Here in the city, we've recently had the highest amount of homocides we've ever had. Some have been just apparent drive by shootings. That doesn't count the armed robberies and such. In the country, there's no crime...NONE! Everyone is really friendly and neighborly, however, I definitely get the feeling that if someone were to break into their house uninvited, they would NOT hesitate to shoot first and ask questions later. Everyone assumes everyone else has a gun there, and IMO, rightly so. Does that say gun ownership has any positive influence on the crime rate? IDK.


Also, regarding a post where you posted an article about police using their armed forces irresponsibly... We just had the police break into a house they had suspected to be a volatile narcotics bust and shot an innocent 90 year old lady, I think by herself, that had nothing to do with illegal activities. Those police officers were arrested.


I am concerned with people who are bi-polar, borderline personality disorders, schizophrenic, DID, and such, that can present a normal fascade and purchase a gun. That's scary. Canada does not allow guns in their country, so I wonder what the incidents of massacres like what happened in Virginia and such are there in that country. What trade offs do we make for having the right to bare arms? I'd appreciate your insights into that. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What trade offs do we make for having the right to bare arms?"


The risk of skin cancer? ;)


I think you mean "bear arms"



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you start using your gun Amanda you might find it quite enjoyable. Best that you not try to learn on your own though. Perhaps Nivek can help you find an instructer in your area. I grew up mostly in a place like you mentioned, in the country. The ONLY trouble we ever had was from dumb ass city people. Every one in my family used guns from grandma and grandpa on down. I was probably not even 6 years old when I started shooting. When you grow up around them, learn to be safe with them, you dont get this irrational fear of them. I'm more afraid of using something like a chain saw or a big rotor-tiller than a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you mean "bear arms"

Thanks... glad you knew what I meant. ;)


Once you start using your gun Amanda you might find it quite enjoyable.

Vixentrox, Thanks for the encouragement, and I do have friends who could teach me. What concerns me is that if the situation arises where I could use a gun, and the perpetrator also has a gun, the odds are that they are going to be better at it than I. Perhaps I would second guess myself or something too. The perpetrator may not have planned on using their gun, yet once they see mine... they may automatically react against my best interest. :(


So I struggle with... should I? ... shouldn't I? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bugger a gun... LAND MINES!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The risk of being killed by a firearm in the US is higher than in any other Western nation. Of countries outside war zones, the risk is greatest in South Africa, according to a United Nations report.




"Guns Save Lives!" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Does anyone else have the lingering paranoia that if Chrsitians hold this belief as true, that there may be something wrong wiht it?


I'm just sayin' :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blame the killer





One question that should be asked following the massacre of the innocents in Virginia is where on earth did the media find so many social workers, child psychologists and pop philosophers and how were they able to utter such complete rubbish for so long?


For the most part they are mere puppets of fashion, tossing around cliches and soppy explanations when the answers are really very simple. It's not about bullying and certainly not about gun control.


This terrible case is about an insane, evil person committing an insane, evil act. Yet evil in particular is something in which we do not believe in the great relativist days of the 21 century when blame and responsibility are treated as swear words. So instead we obsess not about dealing with bad people who murder but with the guns they manage to obtain.


Gun control is actually one of the great digressions of modern times. Most shootings, and most pointless crime, are a result of the decaying social fabric of North America and our headlong rush into ethical mud. Any solution requires more than merely passing a law and then glowing in our own sense of righteousness.


Guns are extraordinarily common in rural communities, where the crime rates are lower than in cities. Farm kids shoot from an early age and are in the company of firearms as small children. Yet there are very few violent rampages and far more social order.


The activists campaigning for even more draconian gun control are invariably the same type of people who demand a lower age of sexual consent, more children's rights, increased funding of daycare rather than support for families, the abolition of corporal punishment and a wholesale dismantling of traditional society.


It is an almost infallible rule that the more liberal a person on social and moral issues the more in favour they are of strict gun control. It is not that such people are malicious, simply that they are wrong. Dangerously wrong. Ignore the disease, misinterpret the diagnoses and then prescribe the wrong medicine.


The problems are not bullets but single-parent families and the absence of male authority figures. Not pistols but parents never seeing their kids because both are working. Not rifles but teachers unable to chastise children.


Our malaise is an obsession with self-esteem when kids actually need and want boundaries and borders. If we control anything it ought to be the endless discussions about young people's feelings and our encouraging them to act out their slightest whim.


If we limit anything it ought to be the constant attacks on family, chastity, faith and duty and the television stations that deaden the mind and the sensibilities with graphic violence, grotesque pornography and vacuous pop videos. After which hosting long discussions asking why kids go wrong.


The mantra of the modern youth. I want, I know, I am, I'm cool, I'm everything. You're nothing, you don't understand, you suck. Feel my pain or I'll destroy you.


Most of these attacks in schools and colleges have nothing to do with the United States, the race of the murderers or the type of guns used. They are about the killing of morality and the destruction of standards and unless we act now we're going to see far more of the consequences. Wake up and smell the cordite.





College students can pack guns in Utah


Saturday, April 28, 2007





SALT LAKE CITY -- Brent Tenney says he feels pretty safe when he goes to class at the University of Utah, but he takes no chances. He brings a loaded 9 mm semiautomatic with him every day.


"It's not that I run around scared all day long, but if something happens to me, I do want to be prepared," said the 24-year-old business major, who has a concealed weapons permit and takes the handgun everywhere but church.


After the massacre at Virginia Tech that left 33 dead, some have suggested that the carnage might have been lower if a student or professor with a gun had stepped in.


As states and colleges across the country review their gun policies in light of the tragedy, many in Utah are proud to have the nation's only state law that expressly allows the carrying of concealed weapons at public colleges.


"If government can't protect you, you should have the right to protect yourself," said Republican state Sen. Michael Waddoups.


Utah legislators and law enforcement authorities said they know of no modern-day shootings at the university. But one lawmaker cited a shooting rampage in Mississippi in 1997 as an example of how allowing others on campus to arm themselves can improve safety: After a teenager shot two students to death at Pearl High School, an assistant principal chased the gunman down outside and held him at bay with a .45-caliber pistol he kept in his truck.


Nationwide, 38 states -- including Virginia -- ban weapons at schools. Of those, 16 explicitly prohibit weapons on college campuses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In other states, each school is allowed to formulate its own policy.


For decades, the University of Utah banned concealed weapons.


"Our view was that there was an increased risk of both accidental and intentional discharge of a firearm if more firearms are present," said spokesman Fred Esplin. "It was a matter of safety."


But in 2004 the Legislature passed a law expressly saying the university is covered by a state law that allows concealed weapons on state property. The university challenged the law, but the Utah Supreme Court upheld it last year.


Utah is easily one of the most conservative states, and the Legislature is dominated by Republicans, many of whom have a libertarian streak. Utah has no motorcycle helmet law, for example, and there is strong affection for the Second Amendment.


The carrying of guns at the university worries students such as Timmy Allin, a freshman on the tennis team from Dallas who feels safe on the 28,000-student urban campus. Allin was not aware weapons were allowed on campus until told by a reporter.


"I don't see the need for one up here, so that could only lead to trouble," he said.


Lawmakers point to a recent shooting at a downtown shopping mall as evidence that concealed weapons prevent additional deaths.


Armed with a shotgun and a pistol, 18-year-old Sulejman Talovic randomly shot nine people at Trolley Square, killing five, on Feb. 12. He died in a shootout with police. An off-duty Ogden police officer carrying a concealed weapon -- in violation of mall policy -- pinned down Talovic with gunfire until other police arrived.


"Thankfully that officer disobeyed the rule of Trolley Square of having no guns," GOP state Rep. Curt Oda said.


Oda said banning guns on campus might do more harm than good. He said people bent on violence might resort to other methods, such as swords.


"A person that's got skill with a sword in a very big crowd could put a lot more people down with a sword than a gun," he said. "They're silent. You'll have people screaming, but nobody knows what's going on."


Justin Ligon, 23, a Virginia Tech student and vice president of the school's Pistol and Rifle Club, whose members who do their shooting at a public firing range, said the Blacksburg, Va., university should drop its prohibition on guns.


He said it is unlikely that bringing guns on campus would make school more dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does Gun totin' mormons not comfort me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern lds folks tend to be nice, complaint, and rather herdish. Few are those who would step outside the social and religious boundaries set for True Latter Day Saints.


LDS with a gun? Men and women truly set in a Law and Order society.


Been well over a century ago since the Brigham's Danites.. I do believe there are enforcers within the ranks of the lds even now, hoever you will never hear of their mistakes.


And you'll find a heavy predominance within Federal Services, FBI, DEA, ATFE, Military. That oughta scare you Gramps, an entire cadre of men and women with access to unlimited tech and arms trained, but eventually loyal to Salt Lake and to Brigham's heirs..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More good articles Nivek!


I'm curious as to the correlation to higher incidents in gun related crimes and when the Regan administration closed all those mental institutions? I've heard jails have an 80% recidivism rate, yet they never offer/require mental rehabilitation services. :Doh:


The sad part is that these mentally deranged people are participating in raising their own kids. And so the cycle goes on. :(


I've heard of one school that had a bomb threat, and the principal banned back packs and book bags. Even large purses were prohibited, and any purse someone did bring was subject to a search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.