Armed citizens take down terrorists

[Richard G]

Israeli citizens are at least as heavily armed as Americans -- since many Israelis have Galil assault rifles or Uzi sub-machine guns, one could argue that, on a per capita basis, they have more firepower. At least 10% (probably more) of Israelis carry a gun (including the aforementioned Uzi), which means that a potential terrorist has at least a 1 in 10 chance of encountering someone who can shoot back. There have been a number of documented cases of terrorists opening fire in public places in an attempt to kill large numbers of Israeli citizens. The results of these attempts have generally gone very badly for the terrorists, with armed citizens returning fire and terminating both the attack and the terrorists.

Source: http://paulhager.org/why004.htm

Just goes to show, the more armed law abiding citizens we have, the more bad news there will be for the bad guys.

[Mr Manifesto]

I've heard of apples and oranges arguments, but this is ridiculous.

[Aoidoi]

Using Israel as an example of a society we want to emulate? Sorry, even if I agree with you on guns I'm not going down that road. :D

[Tmy]

HAHAHHAHA. I know when I think of safe countries Isreal is at the top of the list.

Today Im going to the mall and you know what, I have no fear of it exploding! When I ride the bus my biggest fear is that a stinky bum will sit next to me. Im better off carrying a can of Lysol than a gun.

[Tony]

I want a machine gun :(.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Richard G


Source: http://paulhager.org/why004.htm

Just goes to show, the more armed law abiding citizens we have, the more bad news there will be for the bad guys.

Or it means that there are more guns for burglars to steal and sell to get drug money. Don't worry though, I'm sure the people who wind up with the stolen guns will use them in pursuit of truth, justice, and the American way.

Really, do you have any concept of the following two ideas?

1) The plural of "anecdote" is not proof.

and

2) Measuring a policy by only considering positive results and ignoring negative consequences is, well, stupid.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
I want a machine gun :(.

If you're good, mummy will buy you a Supa Soaker for Christmas.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


If you're good, mummy will buy you a Supa Soaker for Christmas.

I already have one. :)

BTW...Mummy?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Richard G


Source: http://paulhager.org/why004.htm

Just goes to show, the more armed law abiding citizens we have, the more bad news there will be for the bad guys.

If that is the case, I suggest that you move from Ohio to Israel and enjoy the peace and quiet of the well armed population that lives there.

[NightG1]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard G

Just goes to show, the more armed law abiding citizens we have, the more bad news there will be for the bad guys. [/QUOTE

Oregon father of five murders family before turning gun on himself. (http://www.brandonshouse.org/Articles/3Bryant-2-23-02.htm)

[Tony]

Originally posted by NightG1
Oregon father of five murders family before turning gun on himself. (http://www.brandonshouse.org/Articles/3Bryant-2-23-02.htm) [/B]

That was posted yesterday.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


That was posted yesterday.

You mean it happened again? :eek:

Guns really must be dangerous!!! :p

[clk]

Teenager shot to death at house in Vancouver (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1069160452167110.xml)

Truck Driver Found Shot To Death In Cab (http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/2649393/detail.html)

Two shot to death outside their homes (http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/111903/new_shot001.shtml)

Man killed in robbery after stopping for breakfast (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov03/186189.asp)

Suspects sought in Hanna shooting (http://www.darnews.com/articles/2003/11/18/news/news3.txt)

2 found shot to death near lake (http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/7753088p-8656609c.html)

Teenager shot to death while watching TV (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny-brf--teenshot1117nov17,0,6650384.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire)

You get the idea...

All of these happened just recently. For every story you have of guns doing good, I can give you half a dozen stories of guns used to kill innocent people.

[Tony]

Originally posted by clk


You get the idea...

Yes I do. People can can do horrible things.

[showme2]

"
Armed citizens take down terrorists

Just goes to show, the more armed law abiding citizens we have, the more bad news there will be for the bad guys. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, I'm sure that is correct.

Meanwhile here in the UK, Blair's government banned legally-held guns and everyone who had one had to hand it in to be destroyed. (NOT shotguns, mind - the most lethal short-range weopon because they are so destructive and you don't even need to aim particularly well!)

Anyway, the net result is that gun crime - particularly on the streets of London and other major UK cities is at an all-time high.

How can this be, when guns are banned and illegal ?
Well ... the politicians failed to realise that gun crime is commited with illegally held guns, not legally held ones.

So .... in comes the burglar with his gun in his hand.
What are WE supposed to do? Pick up a chair to hit him with ????

Sometimes I think irrationality is an essential qualification for becoming a politician/lawmaker.

We need a Charlton Heston over here !

[Cleopatra]

At least 10% (probably more) of Israelis carry a gun (including the aforementioned Uzi), which means that a potential terrorist has at least a 1 in 10 chance of encountering someone who can shoot back

Yes, if you exclude the fact that the 10% or more of the population serves the Army and according to the regulations while serving the Army one must carry his gun 24h/24 and the fact that the country is in War, the article makes a lot of sense indeed...


The results of these attempts have generally gone very badly for the terrorists, with armed citizens returning fire and terminating both the attack and the terrorists.

In Israeli terminology armed civilians are those who serve the Army and they are EVERYWHERE is the country. They patrol the streets, the public places, the Synagogues, the Hospitals and the Schools.

The author chose the worse possible example to make comparisons.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Tony


That was posted yesterday.
Where? You sure its the same story?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by showme2


How can this be, when guns are banned and illegal ?
Well ... the politicians failed to realise that gun crime is commited with illegally held guns, not legally held ones.


That is just not true. Massacres we have had over here have been done by people using legally held guns.

There are people being shot with illegally held guns, but most of them, at the moment, tend to be other criminals.

There has been a rise in the number of illegal guns, but this is partly due to that idiot gun culture gaining popularity here. Police are cracking down on it.

An illegal gun still costs a lot of money, more than the popular example of the PCP junkie can ever afford.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by showme2
"
Armed citizens take down terrorists

Just goes to show, the more armed law abiding citizens we have, the more bad news there will be for the bad guys. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, I'm sure that is correct.

Meanwhile here in the UK, Blair's government banned legally-held guns and everyone who had one had to hand it in to be destroyed. (NOT shotguns, mind - the most lethal short-range weopon because they are so destructive and you don't even need to aim particularly well!)

Anyway, the net result is that gun crime - particularly on the streets of London and other major UK cities is at an all-time high.

How can this be, when guns are banned and illegal ?
Well ... the politicians failed to realise that gun crime is commited with illegally held guns, not legally held ones.

So .... in comes the burglar with his gun in his hand.
What are WE supposed to do? Pick up a chair to hit him with ????

Sometimes I think irrationality is an essential qualification for becoming a politician/lawmaker.

We need a Charlton Heston over here !

The rise in gun crime in England and Wales is nothing to do with the gun ban. Scotland incidentally has had a huge decrease in gun crime since the mid 90's.

Gun crime is commited with illegally held guns? The parents of Dunblane may take issue with that.......

A burglar comes in with a gun in his hand? Total crime involving guns accounts for approximately 0.04% of all crime. Be more afraid of your dangerous bath.

What we need is customs and excise controls, some deportations and more police officers. The Americans can keep their fanatics.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by clk
Teenager shot to death at house in Vancouver (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1069160452167110.xml)

Truck Driver Found Shot To Death In Cab (http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/2649393/detail.html)

Two shot to death outside their homes (http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/111903/new_shot001.shtml)

Man killed in robbery after stopping for breakfast (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov03/186189.asp)

Suspects sought in Hanna shooting (http://www.darnews.com/articles/2003/11/18/news/news3.txt)

2 found shot to death near lake (http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/7753088p-8656609c.html)

Teenager shot to death while watching TV (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny-brf--teenshot1117nov17,0,6650384.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire)

You get the idea...

All of these happened just recently. For every story you have of guns doing good, I can give you half a dozen stories of guns used to kill innocent people.

Yes, but you see the REAL problem is that none of their victems were carrying guns...

[Zep]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Yes, but you see the REAL problem is that none of their victems were carrying guns... Indeed. And if they had, they would be just as dead but with a gun in their hands/pockets. Gun killers, as a rule, shoot without warning their victims and from positions of cover. They do not stand in front of their victim and say, "You've got until I count to three to hand your wallet over, pardner, or I'll drill ya."

[clk]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Yes, but you see the REAL problem is that none of their victems were carrying guns...

Doh! I neglected to think of that. If all of those victims had been carrying guns, none of that would have happened. The two victims that were shot by a drive-by shooter could have shot the shooter back in their last few seconds on Earth....but those idiots weren't carrying guns.
Of course, if there were no guns, those murders wouldn't have happened either, but why get caught up in silly details?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Zep
Indeed. And if they had, they would be just as dead but with a gun in their hands/pockets. Gun killers, as a rule, shoot without warning their victims and from positions of cover. They do not stand in front of their victim and say, "You've got until I count to three to hand your wallet over, pardner, or I'll drill ya."

Stop lying, you are just spouting commie liberal fascist lies. You know that first they take your guns away, and then your freedom! ;)

[Richard G]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Malachi151
Yes, but you see the REAL problem is that none of their victems were carrying guns...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed. And if they had, they would be just as dead but with a gun in their hands/pockets.

Well I beg to differ in these cases:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30847

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29901

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28570

How can you even pretend to know the outcome of a split second, life and death situation, Zep? You can not. To pretend you can only heaps the lable of ignorance upon yourself.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Richard G
How can you even pretend to know the outcome of a split second, life and death situation, Zep? You can not.

.....but isn't that what you are doing....?

[Troll]

You don't have an official gun or second ammendment topic until CFLarsen comments on it haha

[Zep]

Thanks, CF, that was my question too!

Oh, and Richard G, about those threads...

In the first case, the intended victim pulled out a .357 Magnum and shot the guy supposedly carjacking him. What if it was just a collector for Red Cross or a squeegee guy doing windscreens? And a .357 Magnum is not really a "personal firearm," it's light anti-aircraft artillery - big, heavy and loud. So that's hardly classified as a "personal safety" weapon designed to ward off attackers, is it? More like something that would be used to really THREATEN someone. So gee, I'm so glad no-one knocked the old guy down, or stole his car, and took the weapon...

In the second case, a woman was abducted and in a moment of distraction, unholstered her visible on the hip weapon, shot the guy in the mouth and escaped. Boy, you sure have dumb abductors there! Didn't spot that the woman was carrying a highly visible weapon... Otherwise he would have told her to remove it and hand it over while he still had his gun on her, wouldn't he. Like any SMART crim would have!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zep
Thanks, CF, that was my question too!

Oh, and Richard G, about those threads...

In the first case, the intended victim pulled out a .357 Magnum and shot the guy supposedly carjacking him. What if it was just a collector for Red Cross or a squeegee guy doing windscreens? And a .357 Magnum is not really a "personal firearm," it's light anti-aircraft artillery - big, heavy and loud. So that's hardly classified as a "personal safety" weapon designed to ward off attackers, is it? More like something that would be used to really THREATEN someone. So gee, I'm so glad no-one knocked the old guy down, or stole his car, and took the weapon...

In the second case, a woman was abducted and in a moment of distraction, unholstered her visible on the hip weapon, shot the guy in the mouth and escaped. Boy, you sure have dumb abductors there! Didn't spot that the woman was carrying a highly visible weapon... Otherwise he would have told her to remove it and hand it over while he still had his gun on her, wouldn't he. Like any SMART crim would have!

Are you serious? What if the guy in bed with your kid is just tired and sleepy? Seriously, I'd like to know what your actions would be upon seeing him, I already know it can't be shooting him because that's just wrong and nasty to you. But can you say you'd wake him up and ask him nicely if he was lost? according to you, if you don't you're in error
And yes most criminals aren't the bright ones you see in the movies like Hannibal Lechter

Oh crap. I just caught your comments on a .357. Again I ask, are you serious?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Troll

Are you serious? What if the guy in bed with your kid is just tired and sleepy? Seriously, I'd like to know what your actions would be upon seeing him, I already know it can't be shooting him because that's just wrong and nasty to you. But can you say you'd wake him up and ask him nicely if he was lost? according to you, if you don't you're in error
And yes most criminals aren't the bright ones you see in the movies like Hannibal Lechter

Oh crap. I just caught your comments on a .357. Again I ask, are you serious? OK, so I was a bit over-ironic. I admit it. But the situations described still seem like great beat-up stories for the "Joe Average drops nasty crim with legal handgun, proves theory" crowd, when in fact there is probably a whole lot more to the stories that is most likely NOT being said.

No, of course I have no idea what the real facts ARE, but my own interpretation of the situations can be seen to be just as valid as the examples provided because they are equally utterly plausible! And if I'm not mistaken, there have already been provided a number of conter-examples that look remarkably like my version of how things might have actually played out.

To the subject: Sure, you MAY be safer in some parts of the USA if you carry personal firearms, but tell the truth: is THAT the sort of environment you want to ADVERTISE as normal in the USA? What if I, a happy and peaceful foreigner, happen to go there without any gun for whatever reason? Wouldn't I be expected to be afraid for my own safety if I DIDN'T have a gun? And this doesn't sound scary to you?

And if I should be able to go peacefully about such places without having to carry a gun, why can't US citizens too?

This makes these places sound much more like the (apocryphal) Wild West or any mafia-controlled banana republic than anywhere that is actually civilised. Which begs the question: Why does such an obviously intelligent and reputedly civilised country like the USA continue to let this happen?

[The Don]

Originally posted by showme2
"
Armed citizens take down terrorists

Just goes to show, the more armed law abiding citizens we have, the more bad news there will be for the bad guys. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, I'm sure that is correct.

Meanwhile here in the UK, Blair's government banned legally-held guns and everyone who had one had to hand it in to be destroyed. (NOT shotguns, mind - the most lethal short-range weopon because they are so destructive and you don't even need to aim particularly well!)

Anyway, the net result is that gun crime - particularly on the streets of London and other major UK cities is at an all-time high.

How can this be, when guns are banned and illegal ?
Well ... the politicians failed to realise that gun crime is commited with illegally held guns, not legally held ones.

So .... in comes the burglar with his gun in his hand.
What are WE supposed to do? Pick up a chair to hit him with ????

Sometimes I think irrationality is an essential qualification for becoming a politician/lawmaker.

We need a Charlton Heston over here !

You are quite correct, the incidence of gun crime is higher, not least because there are more wasys of commiting a crime with a gun (i.e. possession).

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/firearms/index.html

Last year 97 people were killed in the UK as a result of gun crime. Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it. How many people would be killed if the drunken yobs who brawl every weekend in any city centre in the UK were routinely armed with firearms.

Gun crime in the UK is confined to a few inner city areas where inter drug gang shootings are (relatively) common.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,1064910,00.html

quote from the above article

Paul Cavadino of Nacro, the crime reduction charity, said the increase in gun crime could not be stemmed by "get tough" mandatory five-year sentences but only by reducing the supply of illegal weapons and the demand fuelled by a macho, glamourised gun culture. Although for most people the chance of becoming a victim was at the lowest for 10 years, there remained genuine concern among the socially excluded and those in deprived areas.

The article below briefly examines who is carrying what

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Be more afraid of your dangerous bath.

Reactionary pinko liberal garbage! If baths are outlawed, only outlaws will have baths. Teddy Kennedy's car has drowned more people than my bathtub, and the only way the government will take my bath is to slide it from under my wet, soapy arse!

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by Richard G


Source: http://paulhager.org/why004.htm

Just goes to show, the more armed law abiding citizens we have, the more bad news there will be for the bad guys.

Post hoc argument. How about this one: The allows human life, humans are evil. Therefore the sun is evil.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Reactionary pinko liberal garbage! If baths are outlawed, only outlaws will have baths. Teddy Kennedy's car has drowned more people than my bathtub, and the only way the government will take my bath is to slide it from under my wet, soapy arse!

http://www.bathroomheaven.com/uploads/arnica_sm.jpg

Look a the taps on this baby. I feel all macho just looking at it...........

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Reactionary pinko liberal garbage! If baths are outlawed, only outlaws will have baths. Teddy Kennedy's car has drowned more people than my bathtub, and the only way the government will take my bath is to slide it from under my wet, soapy arse!

LIES! Everyone knows the English never take baths, and don't own any soap.

[showme2]

""" LIES! Everyone knows the English never take baths, and don't own any soap. """

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mostly true on both counts.

(1) We seldom take baths because we prefer the greater hygiene of showers. (It always seemed a bit uncivilised to sit in your own muck whilst washing)
(2) We have no requirement for soap, since we use shower gel.

[Zep]

Originally posted by showme2
""" LIES! Everyone knows the English never take baths, and don't own any soap. """

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mostly true on both counts.

(1) We seldom take baths because we prefer the greater hygiene of showers. (It always seemed a bit uncivilised to sit in your own muck whilst washing)
(2) We have no requirement for soap, since we use shower gel. OH THANK GOODNESS!

[Tony]

Originally posted by NightG1

Where? You sure its the same story?


Mr Manifesto posted it in the exact same style you did. In one of Richard G's pro-gun topics.