Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/8/2005 4:10:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 4:17:17 PM EDT by 95thFoot]
Ah, yes,yet another antigun editorial trying to seem "reasonable" in its strawman argument......hard to believe it's from a newspaper in Oklahoma- reads more like something from Massachusetts or New Jersey.


Get a gun, stop a terrorist?

Monday, August 8, 2005 10:59 AM CDT

Chris Bird, a journalist and handgun expert, might really believe everything he's saying. On the other hand, maybe he just wants to sell a few books.

When it comes to knowledge in the weaponry arena, Bird is no slouch. He was a company weapon-training officer in the British Army's Royal Military Police during the 1960s. He has since moved to the U.S., where he has devoted himself to educating others about the safe use of weapons. Now, he has written a book on how to choose, carry and shoot a gun in self-defense.

That's all fine and well, until you get to one of his premises. Bird says that for decades, Americans have been "brainwashed" into a passive mentality that made them easy targets for miscreants of every stripe. But thanks to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the scales have fallen from our eyes.

"We learned," Bird says, "that the government and the professionals could not protect us."

If his remark can be taken at face value, it's almost astonishing in its naiveté.

Even before 9/11, most Americans viewed the government and "the professionals" (whatever that means) with varying measures of cynicism. In a dog-eat-dog capitalistic society where the Second Amendment is considered almost as holy as the Bible, distrust is part of our nature. It's just that up until that fateful day, most of us suspected we might need protection from our own government, or some other tyrannical regime, rather than from the nebulous "other" that tried to take us out on 9/11.

It was arrogance on our part, not innocent trust in our government, that rendered America vulnerable to terrorist attack. Or more accurately, we were already vulnerable, as was every other country in the world; we just refused to acknowledge it.

Bird may have missed the target with his assumptions about out faith in government, but that might be attributed to his roots from across the pond. The British people, while accustomed to deadly IRA raids in years passed, had not experienced terrorism of the magnitude the world witnessed on 9/11. And Great Britain, it is worth noting, has much more stringent guns laws than the U.S. Firearms ownership is allowed, but only under specific conditions. Guns must be registered, and are subject to official inquiry without notice.

The second shot Bird fires with his statement is more of an implication, but it fell even wider off the mark than his first missile. The way his statement is worded seems to suggest that if Americans arm themselves with the proper guns and become proficient in their use, they can prevent a repeat of 9/11. How he makes this leap in logic is anybody's guess, but alarmingly, thousands - if not millions - of Americans may agree with him. Surveys show that more Americans are packing these days, and taking advantage of concealed-carry laws many states have recently passed.

It's not that there's anything wrong with buying a handgun, or even carrying it concealed - particularly if the individual has a real reason to feel threatened. And Lord knows that's a common enough situation in these parts. The point is, anyone who is stupid enough to think he can stop a bunch of terrorists from flying an airplane into a skyscraper is probably too stupid to carry a gun.

An individual delusional enough to believe he can stand sentry against such an elusive threat is likely to see enemies around every corner. He couldn't shoot a plane out of the air (though studies show some people are actually convinced they could do just that), but he might be able to shoot an individual terrorist before that miscreant could detonate a bomb. Still, picking that terrorist out of a crowd requires a type of training and expertise the would-be hero couldn't pick up in a few gun safety classes. He's more likely to engage in racial profiling, and wind up killing an innocent person.

Bird is right when he says not everyone should rush out and buy a handgun, and he's also correct to urge gun owners to get proper training. Trigger locks are essential when guns are around children, and keeping the gun clean can also prevent tragic accidents. But as in most things, practice makes perfect, and simply reading a book about gun safety won't do the trick. Nor will it reassure society that the person carrying the gun is mentally fit to do so.

A gun may be useful in the hands of a cautious, alert and well-trained person who just wants to hedge his bets. That sort of person understands he's defending himself against a criminal breaking into his home or an assailant with a knife and a drug habit, not a "terrorist" with a bomb in a sachel. But in the hands of a paranoid, frightened person, the same gun could be deadly. And too often, we don't know who's who until it's too late.

Self-defense is one thing; a pre-emptive strike is another. If Bird and others like him (Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association comes to mind) really wanted to do us a favor, they'd spend time making sure the ignorant know the difference.




Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:14:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:
hard to believe it's from a newspaper in Oklahona- reads more like something from Massachusetts or New Jersey.



HA! If it can happen here, it can happen there!
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:18:59 PM EDT
I think the easiest way to discredit the whole "you're ignorant if you think it could ever stop a terrorits" crap this article spews is to ask "so what would have happened if the passengers on the doomed flights on 9/11 had firearms?"
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:30:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I think the easiest way to discredit the whole "you're ignorant if you think it could ever stop a terrorits" crap this article spews is to ask "so what would have happened if the passengers on the doomed flights on 9/11 had firearms?"




My exact thoughts.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:38:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I think the easiest way to discredit the whole "you're ignorant if you think it could ever stop a terrorits" crap this article spews is to ask "so what would have happened if the passengers on the doomed flights on 9/11 had firearms?"



I told that to my Dad, and he still wouldn't listen. "What if you miss, and there's a hole in the plane and it gets depressurized and everything sucks out?!?!?" "What if you miss and hit an innocent?"
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:41:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BigWorm55:

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I think the easiest way to discredit the whole "you're ignorant if you think it could ever stop a terrorits" crap this article spews is to ask "so what would have happened if the passengers on the doomed flights on 9/11 had firearms?"



I told that to my Dad, and he still wouldn't listen. "What if you miss, and there's a hole in the plane and it gets depressurized and everything sucks out?!?!?"



"But dad, what I I told you that what you just said was totally BS and incredibly ignorant?"


"What if you miss and hit an innocent?"


"What is worse: one or two injured or possibly dead innocents among the now-dead terrorists, or the entire plane going down (and possibly whatever it hits) because you sat there and did nothing?"
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:45:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I think the easiest way to discredit the whole "you're ignorant if you think it could ever stop a terrorits" crap this article spews is to ask "so what would have happened if the passengers on the doomed flights on 9/11 had firearms?"



You don't even have to go that far to prove your point. You could have said "what if the PILOTS had sidearms?". It's kinda hard to argue against arming pilots, but there are many "what ifs" involved in armed passengers that antis can use to discredit your arguement. Use tact in your arguments and back the antis into a corner!
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:45:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:

Originally Posted By BigWorm55:

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I think the easiest way to discredit the whole "you're ignorant if you think it could ever stop a terrorits" crap this article spews is to ask "so what would have happened if the passengers on the doomed flights on 9/11 had firearms?"



I told that to my Dad, and he still wouldn't listen. "What if you miss, and there's a hole in the plane and it gets depressurized and everything sucks out?!?!?"



"But dad, what I I told you that what you just said was totally BS and incredibly ignorant?"


"What if you miss and hit an innocent?"


"What is worse: one or two injured or possibly dead innocents among the now-dead terrorists, or the entire plane going down (and possibly whatever it hits) because you sat there and did nothing?"



Trust me, I tried to explain things to him, but he won't listen, and neither will anybody else who doesn't have a basic understanding of guns and self-defense. People like him are educated by the movies and the good old "What if you hit an innocent" and "Your gun will probably be taken from you and used against you" arguments.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:29:54 PM EDT
Not so much if they had firarms, it was a full flight with what 7 terrorists with boxcutters? Me personally, I have a black belt and used to teach karate, but even if I didn't, a plane full of people could easily overpower 7 people with boxcutters. A few people might get some deep cuts, but I'd take that over thousands of people dying because I was afriad of a boxcutter. I am not trying to defame the innocent people killed in the tragedy that was Sept 11, or call them cowards, please don't take my statements that way. I understand the that they we're terrified and that those people were probably thinking as "individuals" what good can I do? This mentality I balme on the selfish nature of people that has been the cornerstone of advertising and media -The "me" generation, focussing only on ones self is what allows terrorists and enemies to thrive. If people would realize that while a gun helps in empowering them, the decision to try to do the right thing for the good of others is far more powerful in stoping evil. Those passengers didn't need guns to stop the terrorists, they needed one person, to convince a few others that they could stop this right now, and the rest would have joined in. Liberals will never understand that if they keep putting the responsibility of defense and protection on others and keep believing and preaching "what can I possibly do against this? It's not my responsibility"

I believe that those of us that have decided to protect those we love and ourselves by arming ourselves are not diluded or misguided. We have just made the decision to make it our resposibility to defend ourselves as a whole. If anyone believes that we can't do anything about our current situation, they will be getting behind us for protection if things get worse.

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:39:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ShortMikeB:
Not so much if they had firarms, it was a full flight with what 7 terrorists with boxcutters? Me personally, I have a black belt and used to teach karate, but even if I didn't, a plane full of people could easily overpower 7 people with boxcutters. A few people might get some deep cuts, but I'd take that over thousands of people dying because I was afriad of a boxcutter. I am not trying to defame the innocent people killed in the tragedy that was Sept 11, or call them cowards, please don't take my statements that way. I understand the that they we're terrified and that those people were probably thinking as "individuals" what good can I do? This mentality I balme on the selfish nature of people that has been the cornerstone of advertising and media -The "me" generation, focussing only on ones self is what allows terrorists and enemies to thrive. If people would realize that while a gun helps in empowering them, the decision to try to do the right thing for the good of others is far more powerful in stoping evil. Those passengers didn't need guns to stop the terrorists, they needed one person, to convince a few others that they could stop this right now, and the rest would have joined in. Liberals will never understand that if they keep putting the responsibility of defense and protection on others and keep believing and preaching "what can I possibly do against this? It's not my responsibility"

I believe that those of us that have decided to protect those we love and ourselves by arming ourselves are not diluded or misguided. We have just made the decision to make it our resposibility to defend ourselves as a whole. If anyone believes that we can't do anything about our current situation, they will be getting behind us for protection if things get worse.




+1
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:40:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:
Ah, yes,yet another antigun editorial trying to seem "reasonable" in its strawman argument......hard to believe it's from a newspaper in Oklahoma- reads more like something from Massachusetts or New Jersey.


Get a gun, stop a terrorist?

Monday, August 8, 2005 10:59 AM CDT

Chris Bird, a journalist and handgun expert, might really believe everything he's saying. On the other hand, maybe he just wants to sell a few books.

....




HA! No one in the media should ever be able to say that with a straight face,
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:43:56 PM EDT
Isn't that the same dude who touts or invented the center axis lock or whtever it is with your a inch from your face?
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:28:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I think the easiest way to discredit the whole "you're ignorant if you think it could ever stop a terrorits" crap this article spews is to ask "so what would have happened if the passengers on the doomed flights on 9/11 had firearms?"



Then wouldnt the terrorists been able to bring firearms on board too???
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:31:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By www-glock19-com:
Isn't that the same dude who touts or invented the center axis lock or whtever it is with your a inch from your face?



No, that would be Paul Castle that claims to have invented Center Axis Relock.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:38:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By racer934:

Originally Posted By www-glock19-com:
Isn't that the same dude who touts or invented the center axis lock or whtever it is with your a inch from your face?



No, that would be Paul Castle that claims to have invented Center Axis Relock.


Thanks the british thing made me think it was him
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:46:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:
Ah, yes,yet another antigun editorial trying to seem "reasonable" in its strawman argument......hard to believe it's from a newspaper in Oklahoma- reads more like something from Massachusetts or New Jersey.


Get a gun, stop a terrorist?

Monday, August 8, 2005 10:59 AM CDT

Chris Bird, a journalist and handgun expert, might really believe everything he's saying. On the other hand, maybe he just wants to sell a few books.

When it comes to knowledge in the weaponry arena, Bird is no slouch. He was a company weapon-training officer in the British Army's Royal Military Police during the 1960s. He has since moved to the U.S., where he has devoted himself to educating others about the safe use of weapons. Now, he has written a book on how to choose, carry and shoot a gun in self-defense.

That's all fine and well, until you get to one of his premises. Bird says that for decades, Americans have been "brainwashed" into a passive mentality that made them easy targets for miscreants of every stripe. But thanks to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the scales have fallen from our eyes.

"We learned," Bird says, "that the government and the professionals could not protect us."

If his remark can be taken at face value, it's almost astonishing in its naiveté.

Even before 9/11, most Americans viewed the government and "the professionals" (whatever that means) with varying measures of cynicism. In a dog-eat-dog capitalistic society where the Second Amendment is considered almost as holy as the Bible, distrust is part of our nature. It's just that up until that fateful day, most of us suspected we might need protection from our own government, or some other tyrannical regime, rather than from the nebulous "other" that tried to take us out on 9/11.

It was arrogance on our part, not innocent trust in our government, that rendered America vulnerable to terrorist attack. Or more accurately, we were already vulnerable, as was every other country in the world; we just refused to acknowledge it.

Bird may have missed the target with his assumptions about out faith in government, but that might be attributed to his roots from across the pond. The British people, while accustomed to deadly IRA raids in years passed, had not experienced terrorism of the magnitude the world witnessed on 9/11. And Great Britain, it is worth noting, has much more stringent guns laws than the U.S. Firearms ownership is allowed, but only under specific conditions. Guns must be registered, and are subject to official inquiry without notice.

The second shot Bird fires with his statement is more of an implication, but it fell even wider off the mark than his first missile. The way his statement is worded seems to suggest that if Americans arm themselves with the proper guns and become proficient in their use, they can prevent a repeat of 9/11. How he makes this leap in logic is anybody's guess, but alarmingly, thousands - if not millions - of Americans may agree with him. Surveys show that more Americans are packing these days, and taking advantage of concealed-carry laws many states have recently passed.

It's not that there's anything wrong with buying a handgun, or even carrying it concealed - particularly if the individual has a real reason to feel threatened. And Lord knows that's a common enough situation in these parts. The point is, anyone who is stupid enough to think he can stop a bunch of terrorists from flying an airplane into a skyscraper is probably too stupid to carry a gun.

An individual delusional enough to believe he can stand sentry against such an elusive threat is likely to see enemies around every corner. He couldn't shoot a plane out of the air (though studies show some people are actually convinced they could do just that), but he might be able to shoot an individual terrorist before that miscreant could detonate a bomb. Still, picking that terrorist out of a crowd requires a type of training and expertise the would-be hero couldn't pick up in a few gun safety classes. He's more likely to engage in racial profiling, and wind up killing an innocent person.

Bird is right when he says not everyone should rush out and buy a handgun, and he's also correct to urge gun owners to get proper training. Trigger locks are essential when guns are around children, and keeping the gun clean can also prevent tragic accidents. But as in most things, practice makes perfect, and simply reading a book about gun safety won't do the trick. Nor will it reassure society that the person carrying the gun is mentally fit to do so.

A gun may be useful in the hands of a cautious, alert and well-trained person who just wants to hedge his bets. That sort of person understands he's defending himself against a criminal breaking into his home or an assailant with a knife and a drug habit, not a "terrorist" with a bomb in a sachel. But in the hands of a paranoid, frightened person, the same gun could be deadly. And too often, we don't know who's who until it's too late.

Self-defense is one thing; a pre-emptive strike is another. If Bird and others like him (Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association comes to mind) really wanted to do us a favor, they'd spend time making sure the ignorant know the difference.







stupid fuckhead. That's exactly why we don't have air marshals who carry guns on planes or armed airport cops....... oh wait a minute... we DO! Oh gee, how about them apples?
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:51:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:
hard to believe it's from a newspaper in Oklahona- reads more like something from Massachusetts or New Jersey.



The Left has done a very good job of entrenching its way of thinking in "Useful Idiots" throughout the Nation. They are everywhere, not Just the North East & West.

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:55:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I think the easiest way to discredit the whole "you're ignorant if you think it could ever stop a terrorits" crap this article spews is to ask "so what would have happened if the passengers on the doomed flights on 9/11 had firearms?"



Then wouldnt the terrorists been able to bring firearms on board too???



No, they would have carried on some of Saddam's WMDs
Top Top