Friday, July 20, 2012

Fuck it. I'll say it. One armed citizen could have made a difference.



It happened again.

One madman attacked a group of his fellow citizens and no one stood up to take the rabid dog down.

The video above shows what happens when good men stand up to defend themselves and others.  Take a good look.

Evil flees in the presence of strength and determination not to be a victim.

ONE PERSON, ARMED AND READY COULD HAVE SAVED LIVES.

You talk about how we should all be disarmed...how only police should have guns?  Guess what.  The police response was excellent.  There actions on scene picture perfect.  Yet too many were killed and injured.

Its time for the pussification of America to stop.  Arm yourselves, become proficient with your weapons and take down rabid dogs where you find them.  People die.  Bad things will continue to happen but we should gird ourselves to that reality and not cry about the times in which we live.  Fight back, make a difference.

You owe YOURSELF nothing less.


UPDATE: 

As expectged the anti-gun crowd has arrived and are throwing around statistics designed to back there position.  Like I said.  As expected.  Paralus makes such a strong statement against there position that I thought it needed to be highlighted.
Pfooey. There are over 70 million gun owners in the US. We experience about 9-12k homicides a year, 15000 suicides and about 1100 accidents resulting in a death.

Taking out the suicides (firearm is the method, not the cause of those, which is mental illness), that means we have about 13k firearms homicides.

We have about 45k automobile related deaths each year in the US. One third of those involve alcohol. That means we tolerate 15k traffic deaths due to drunk driving.

We don't bat an eye at drunk driving or automobile deaths in our society, and the vast majority of simply accept it as the cost we pay for having access to alcohol and vehicles. We could easily require manufacturer's to install breathalyzer ignitions or develop technology that detects erratic driving, but we don't. Why? Drunk driving deaths are okay to our society.

But firearms? "Firearms are dangerous and should be banned".

More lives in the US have been adversely affected by alcohol-related traffic accidents than those affected by firearms deaths, but 'guns are the problem'. I bet more people have driven drunk themselves than known anyone involved in the firearms homicide.

As Malthusian population control factor, guns don't have anything on our own socially permissible vices.

46 comments:

  1. thanks CB, but just wait. the men that have been completely pussified will come slamming on here talking about how we need "sensible" gun laws instead of focusing on the idiot that did this attrocity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. britain is unarmed, how many murders where there last year 1.23 per 100,000.

    america, where there is more guns than citizens, there was 4.8 murders per 100,000.

    now everything being equal, i'd bet there was more accidental deaths by guns, in the u.s. than there was murder by gun in the u.k, or less likely but probable, overall murder in the uk.

    now i'm not saying they where all by guns, and the halfing of the murder rate, in theu.s. over the last 20 years is impressive, all i'm saying is guns aren't the answer, i'd rather be able to outrun a "perp's knife" than his bullet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. more people immigrate to the US from the UK rather than the other way around. those immigrants are "desirable" peoples...those that are educated, constructive members of society. in others words we're getting your best and brightest. you get our bloated, socialist leaning movie stars.

    additionally the population of the US and the construction of our country leads to any comparison in murder rates to be irrelevant. the UK is virtually a city state compared to the US.

    lastly. what happens when you can't outrun your attacker? what happens when you are of an age where you cannot depend on your physical strength to overpower you attacker?

    in your world we would have unarmed victims.

    in mine, the crimminal would be constantly worried that the person they approached was able to defend themselves.

    i want to protect me and mine. you want someone to protect you. a different mindset. if that works for you then fine. it DOES NOT work for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Solomon, england is a virtual city state, but scotland wales ireland aren't, i'd know many people in glasgow that would love to give you a "kiss" for saying so!!!

      your right the make up of our countries is divergent, but we are just as concerned over the same issues, gangs, drugs, murder, serious crime etc etc, the difference is these people dont have ready access to firearms. not saying no criminals carry a gun just saying that it not the norm.

      we have a very diverse population, with many of the same tensions, over intergration, imigration legal or otherwise.

      the economy is weak just like the u.s.
      britain went back into recession by 0.1 percent, because of the euro, greece, spain, italia etc etc.

      the u.s. didnt, i believe and obama has brought the unemployed figure down from 12 million to 9 million, pretty good.

      the age factor, will always be a bad thing even if you have a gun, what i mean by that is, if your old and decrepid, should you have a gun anyways? case in point, old granny comes out of supermarket see's someone pulling out of the lot in her car.
      she steps out into the road, pulls out her hand cannon, yells "stop motherfuckers". The young guys in the car go white, jump out the car and run...... turns out, not her car, cars where she left it. she just carjacked a bunch of guys, getting a some beers for a bbq.

      ok maybe it's an urban legend, but without the gun trhe old lady would have thought hay there taking my car, did nothing about it, then realised, she was wrong.

      in your world we would have unarmed victims.

      In my world, we would have unarmed criminals.

      i want to protect me and mine, someone comes into my house, i'll defend my family, but i wont start a confrontation unless i'm threatend, is a posesion, worth putting your life on the line?

      Delete
    2. LOL Solomon

      "more people immigrate to the US from the UK rather than the other way around. those immigrants are "desirable" peoples...those that are educated, constructive members of society. in others words we're getting your best and brightest. you get our bloated, socialist leaning movie stars."

      Truth hurts darren1678

      Delete
  4. i will say this, i don t think crime level and the availability of guns go hand in hand, a guy who commites a crime generally will do it anyways.

    a gun is simply an escalation of his generaly criminal ways & acts as a force multiplier.

    the sad truth is bystanders whether they are 4 metres away or 100metres away can be killed by a bullet, whether the "perps" or the "armed citizen" fired the shot. I'd like too see the "perp" try and throw his knife the same distances, with any lethality.

    ReplyDelete
  5. the UK has some of the most draconian gun laws in the free world. can a determined individual still acquire a handgun?

    if the answer is yes then you're just dreaming and putting your personal safety in the hands of others.

    i refuse to do that.

    besides. i have heard of gun murders in the uk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i never said there weren't, all i'm saying is, it isn't prevelent.

      in 2008 there where 39 muders by gun, in the whole of the u.k.

      by contrast, in 2009, in the u.s. there where over 9000 murders by gun in the whole of the u.s.

      Delete
    2. how many of those were scumbags killing scumbags?

      Delete
    3. how many of those where kids playing in there yards, while scumbags shot it out, a block away??? guns are indiscriminate, if your in it's trajectory.

      Delete
    4. one interresting thing i saw was the halfing of the murder rate in the last 20 years, in the u.s. i saw a documentry, once that postulated that, this is primarily down to the legalisation of abortions, in the u.s, during the 70's. it goes like this, unwanted pregnancies, they are more likely to be neglected, a less stable childhood, therefore more likely to comite crime in adulthood, whereas a wanted pregnancy, more likely to have a higher standard of care, more likely to feel loved etc etc, therefore less likely to commite crime. a bit more complex than that but thats the jist

      that combined with most crimes is committed by the young & iddle aged (15 to 40 ) ish, therefore, as fewer unwanted pregnancies occur and an aging population of criminals, with fewer youths to fill the ranks, leads to fewer crimes

      Delete
  6. Tightening gun laws will not stop bad people from getting guns just keep the regular Joe from defending himself.

    Also police were quick but only because they already happen to be there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. if you're a lawful gunowner then you wouldn't approach anyone stealing a car, you would retreat and call police. now lets put this into a realistic and proper context.

    you are driving home from the movies. you pull up to a light and a group of hoodlums surround your car with baseball bats and guns and start banging away at your hood telling you to get out so they can kill you too.

    you can't drive away because someone in front of you (probably an accomplice) has you blocked. do you cower in fear? do you hope the ccv catches them on film so that they'll be able to catch the people that are about to kill you? or do you pull out your handgun and go to work to protect your life?

    in your world you cower in fear. in my world even an old lady would have a chance at life.

    ReplyDelete
  8. i certainly wouldn't start shooting unless my car was armoured, as my kids & wife would probably be hit when they return fire.

    this situation, wouldn't arrise in the u.k. as they aint likely to have a gun. plus if they blocked my way, i'd be happy to mow them down in reverse.

    ReplyDelete
  9. being, a lawfull gunowner, doesn't stop you doing something irational, when you have adrenaline pumping thru you, "fight or flight", takes over little old lady, obviously took the fight..

    ReplyDelete
  10. "fight or flight", takes over.

    little old lady, obviously took the fight.. lol

    ReplyDelete
  11. Reading this discussion, I'm glad I live in the U.S..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. because like most RIGHT thinking Americans he believes in self determination. being a ward of the state even when it comes down to basic rights like self defense might mean you live in a guilded cage but its a cage none the less.

      one of our greats stated....
      They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

      Delete
    2. i'll quote someone else

      The great aim of the struggle for liberty has been equality before the law.

      F.A. Hayek


      "essential liberty" he was talking about freedom, gotta remeber when he said that they had singleshot muskets, wonder if he would think, it rational, an individual being able to go out with the proper permits, due diligence etc etc and buy a "ma deuce" .50 cal for "target practice" or be all gangsta and buy a pair of "mack 10's" legally or otherwise.

      Delete
    3. a german economist? you're fucking shitting me right? like i give a rats ass what a GERMAN has to say about American values?

      but i'm off topic. the US system is best for Americans. the UK's system while the basis of a portion of our law has obviously been replaced by one that is far superior.

      Delete
    4. be serious would you dont be all pissy, we have divergent view point on this issue, no need to be personal.

      i enjoy our arguements as you seem to aswell?
      so lets keep it on point & argue the heck out of it!!

      Delete
  12. i think Darren has a point, individuals like you Sol and others are very well trained to stand and fight, and to that we are grateful, but how many common gun owners will have the wherewithal to stand and fight? i actually dont know if theres been any cognitive psychology research, at what point in training does a person have the ability to override their fight or flight responses and stand and fight, thats my concern with more weapons, if we knew when people would use their weapons for defending themselves or others and not abuse them then it would be alot easier. there was recently a news story of a three year old accidentally shooting and killing his dad because he was playing with the dads gun.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/3-year-old-accidentally-shoots-dad-death-family-watches-tv-article-1.1116267

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. weapon skills like anything else must be learned, practiced and developed. and like weight training it doesn't matter when you start but you must make the effort. additionally its about the will to learn, the will to defend yourself and learning when and when not to employ your weapon that makes all the difference in the world.

      not meaning to put you out there but did you know that the fastest growing segment of gun owners are the physically handicapped? no longer can evil people assume that because a person is confined to a wheel chair that they are prey. these same people are learning to defend themselves.

      its not aboout the person, its about there will and mental strength!

      Delete
    2. Sol, i absolutely agree with what you say, and i have no doubts people with disabilities are arming themselves (at least one place we dont come up short :D), i guess what i am saying is i want discussion of the use of weapons to be involved in the discussion of access to weapons, and how to get people to use them appropriately and have the ability and training and mental ability to use them as needed for the defense of themselves and others.

      Delete
    3. the more you restrict something the greater the black market for that item becomes. dirty secret. during the assault weapons ban i could still take a magazine (lets use glock for example) and remove the block that was inserted to make it legal and still have a weapon with a normal capacity. cars kill more people every year than guns yet we never talk about banning them

      and where do you draw the line between individual liberty and government intrusion? the mayor of new york wants to ban large soft drinks! and that was after he got his gun ban. now he wants to do the same to the greater US. we don't want it Joe! in some parts of the country we like our shooting sports.

      Delete
    4. it's a balancing act, sure but like your most recent, blog post, the guy that killed 10 people used a drum feeder carrying a hundred rounds, to paraphase, do you believe to protect your liberty you need to be able to fire a hundred rounds into someone, to make sure there dead.

      again is it necessary that you have lax gun control, to protect liberty, virtually ensuring any nut can buy a gun, i'm not saying that this guy might be stopped, but the guy who kills his wife with a gun, after been reported to the police several times, might be.

      again goes for amunition, does the amunition you use have to be extra lethal beyond it poking big gaping holes in people,

      i dont think any of these are necesary for the good people of america.

      Cars used to kill way more people, when wearing your seatbelt wasn't mandatory, or you didn't have crumple zones, or colapsing stearing colums, now alot less people die, and i'm sure, you'd agree these changes where for the better, saving many lifes.

      Delete
    5. so your solution is to impose restrictions on the 99.9 percent of the law ful gun owners that do nothing more than collect, hunt and target shoot with their firearms? that seems awful silly. sorta like authorities requiring limiting the amount of sinus medicine that i can buy over the counter because a small portion of the population used them to make meth? and whether it is a 10 round magazine or a 100 round magazine the results would have been the same. have you actually ever shot a weapon? i can fire, reload, fire, reload over and over again with very little letup in my rate of fire.

      once you start on the type of gun ban that you're talking about you're heading down a slippery slope of state regulation.

      you see it in the UK. i see it in New York and California. they both have some of the most stringent gun laws in the US yet they have some of the highest murder rates. additionally now that the mayor of New York city has his precious gun laws he's trying to push his beliefs on other states and is imposing a limit on the size of soft drink that his residents can buy.

      its socialism. its control of the citizens by the state. its fear and weakness its sad and pathetic.

      i'm done with this conversation and don't fool yourself. i'm not even close to being swayed by your arguments but to be quite honest its not getting us anywhere. you're not changing your mind and i damn sure ain't changing mine.

      Delete
    6. sol your right, for the great majority of gun owners are law abiding, but, unfortunately that 1% fucks it up for the rest.
      Your a marine trained to fire a gun under stressfull conditions, under fire, as it where. The great majority aren't so yes limiting capacities, will give people those vitale seconds to run or return fire, or over power said person.

      In the u.k. the draconian gun laws came about because of the dunblane masacre of primary one school children, killing an entire class of children 15 or 16 children, died that day, most where 5 or 6 year olds, their teacher was also murdered.

      Unfortunatly with something so powerfull, the 1% will affect the rest of society.

      i do believe, that every american has the right to bear arms, just not a completely unlimited right.

      yes i have shot fire arms before, entirely shotguns as these are available in the u.k. not pump action type just the 2 barrel, plus if you join the army cadets as a teenager your able to get your hands on a sa80 semi auto, chambered for .22, my friend had that training, quite enjoyed himself, if you join the teritorial army again you can get access to high power weapons with the correct training, rather like your national guard
      I used to go clay pigeon shooting as a kid quite enjoyed it. I was taught how to carry a shot gun etc etc, never loaded always with the barrel open etc, a well trained populus combined with good laws & adequate enforement can only make for a safer population

      Delete
  13. Sol

    like i said before, i dont think guns & crime go hand in hand, but criminals will use a gun as a force multiplier, especially if they think the victim might be packing.

    also, i think your right a country that has high gun ownership, must teach there population, from an early age about the correct use of weapons,

    For a country that has the right balance of gun control, look at the swiss.

    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  14. the swiss are a homogeneous population with little immigration, a highly educated population, high standards of living and little crime. there are enclaves of the very same thing here in the US and the UK.

    your example is misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  15. jsut out of curiosity how do you explain the areas of the US with the highest rates of gunownership having lower crime rates than those with the most restrictive gun laws?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i dont, like i said

      "i dont think guns & crime go hand in hand"

      they only make possible crime harder to escape from & more likely to end with someones death

      Delete
  16. your right about the swiss, being all the same with little immigration etc etc, i was trying to make two points with that statement.

    1 they have good gun control laws, & good education on guns

    2. i was reinforcing my point when i said "i dont think guns & crime go hand in hand", in the sentense before.

    a Common sense, approch to gun control, would work, for america.

    ban private sales of guns, gun fairs etc etc.

    enforce a 60 day waiting period. with full criminal checks etc etc

    concealed permits must be renewed 2 yearly with mental & safe handeling checks, performed by the police

    any criminal conviction involving violence, automatic life ban for the ownership of a gun, or if found in posession of one a serious criminal offense.

    ban all fully automatic weapons, do you really need to empty a hundred bullets into a person to make sure there dead.

    only allow the person who own the gun, able to buy amunition for that gun. where and when etc etc recorded.

    ban all exspanding amunition e.g. hollow points dumb dumbs etc.

    all guns before there sold must have balistic finger prints taken.

    make the non reporting of a lost or stolen gun, a criminal offense. with jail time.

    plus a whole raft of other legislation.

    i know some of these are already law, but it's not working

    ReplyDelete
  17. so you would overturn our constitutional right to keep and bear arms...you would ignore the fact that the places with the most restrictive gun laws are also the places with the highest rates of gun crime...you would seek safety over liberty in a mass experiment to rid my country of a fundamental right borne of our fight against British imperialism?

    thanks but no thanks. that's not change i can live with. wait till i die and maybe you can fool my kids or grand kids to live in that type of socialist craziness but i'll pass. oh and if it gets to a point of where some misguided fool decides to pass those types of laws over my and others objections then thats the same day i become a crimminal.

    a crimminal thats able to protect himself from both the government and others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. britain went to far, when they band handguns etc etc, but gun crime was pretty much non existent in the uk, like i said 39 murders by gun in 2008. probably slightly higher before the ban but not much.

      i would NOT OVERTURN YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, but i would do my darndest to keep those guns out of criminals hands, if the gun does end up in criminals hands i's sure as heck, have a good record of that gun and where it was bought & sold, plus i'd give the victim every chance to live if he was shot, e.g. no exspanding ammo

      plus wouldn't you want anyone who holds a concealed permit to be sane & have regular training on the safe use & handaling

      Delete
  18. BTW, Hayek was Austrian (and a crank).

    Considering the lack of training possessed by the average carry permit holder, how would most of dealt with screaming wave of humanity in a dark theater filled with smoke? Even top professionals would have been severely taxed to get off a clear shot in such a scenario.

    What's shocking to me is that we haven't see a Mumbai-type here considering how easy it would be. You don't need to waste time trying to smuggle explosives on a plane. A terrorist group could train 50 gunmen to arm themselves, split into groups of five, and start attacking shopping malls, schools, hospitals, etc. all on the same day.

    Or do wide-spread version of the DC Sniper attacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  19. i just liked the quote, Hayek maybe a crank but his crankyness has elegance

    i deleted my last comment as i mispelled a word completly changing it's meaning

    ReplyDelete
  20. if you think Mumbai would be easy in the US then consider the trouble that could be reaped on any European country! I could easily land on the shores of any of those countries and not even need a team or support. simply pull out a sniper rifle in Paris. kill 10 citizens in a square and drive to the next country before border security gets setup. in London i could kill 10 more and make my way to ireland. 10 more and then try and get out by boat.

    no armed opposition...the only thing to worry about is cameras. in the US i might have to worry about getting pulled over by police or running into an armed citizen but in Europe...no such worries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the frence can own guns, britain isnt party to the Schengen agreement "open boders", plus i think if you tried that in london you be dead in 15 minutes, remeber london had too deal with the i.r.a for a long time. Ireland well, good luck, your body would never be found. They have weapons illegally stockpiled in every field!!!

      Delete
  21. Jesus. It's like the fucking wild west.

    The boys with all the guns out there always seem to forget about the first part of the second amendment. Since when are you part of a well-regulated militia ?

    When you can legally buy this weaponry, the police don't stand a chance and when everyone's carrying then there's always some nut that will open fire and LOTS of people will get hurt, either intentionally or otherwise.

    Ahh, the irony. The States are rapidly becoming indistinguishable from the Gotham that the movie portrays.

    BTW can we forget about the stupid specious arguement about "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Hammers don't drive in nails, people drive in nails. Now try doing it without the hammer.

    One of your commentators (I forget which nut it was) tries to link high rates of violent crime with tighter gun laws. Another specious, strawman arguement. Try the stats on comparing GUN RELATED DEATHS with tighter gun laws. Last year :

    UK - 1.04 per 100,000 population
    Japan - 0.07
    Germany - 1.57

    Good old USA - 10.27

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pfooey. There are over 70 million gun owners in the US. We experience about 9-12k homicides a year, 15000 suicides and about 1100 accidents resulting in a death.
    Taking out the suicides (firearm are the incidental method, the cause is mental illness), that means we have about 13k firearms homicides.

    We have about 45k automobile related deaths each year in the US. One third of those involve alcohol. That means we tolerate 15k traffic deaths due to drunk driving.

    We don't bat an eye at drunk driving or automobile deaths in our society, and the vast majority of simply accept it as the cost we pay for having access to alcohol and vehicles. We could easily require manufacturer's to install breathalyzer ignitions or develop technology that detects erratic driving, but we don't. Why? Drunk driving deaths are okay to our society.

    But firearms? "Firearms are dangerous and should be banned".
    More lives in the US have been adversely affected by alcohol-related traffic accidents than those affected by firearms deaths, but 'guns are the problem'. I bet more people have driven drunk themselves than known anyone involved in the firearms homicide. As a Malthusian population control factor, guns don't have anything on our own socially permissible vices.

    And I'll take the US and our urban life over the UK's lager lout epidemic any day of the week.

    ReplyDelete
  24. There was a pick-up down in Texas that was carrying 23 illegal aliens and crashed. 14 people were killed when it ran into a grove of trees.

    Is their a national debate about illegal immigration?

    But some nutjub runs amok and kills suburban theater-goers with a gun and it's media circus.

    ReplyDelete