An armed society is a polite society: Fort Hood

[manolo]

Folks,

Following another Fort Hood shooting, maybe US legislators should revisit the question of gun control.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... base-texas

As gun control is a difficult issue in the US, I would like to offer an alternative for making streets and public places safer. A law could be passed making it compulsory for all US citizens to openly carry loaded firearms at all times. For comfort and convenience we could not reasonably expect people to have the guns always in hand, so perhaps suitable quick draw holsters could be provided in ladies, gents and young people’s sizes. Also, there would need to be a minimum calibre and accuracy requirement to ensure stopping power.

Of course, guns are not an effective deterrent if you can’t use them, so the NRA could be made responsible for compulsory firearms training in all schools and colleges. Folk could be tested each year to check their quick draw capabilities are up to the mark and their compulsory firearms spot checked to ensure they are kept cleaned and loaded at all times.

There could be some difficulties. Rogue shooters could use assault rifles in their rampages and citizens armed only with pistols might suffer injury. To be reasonable, I don’t think it would be easy to compel everyone to carry an AK47, so perhaps further weaponry could be optional, provided that the compulsory weapon is ready and to hand.

Another problem is the itchy trigger finger. Maybe in a bar room or at a prayer meeting someone might thoughtlessly finger their weapon and be swiftly gunned down by those around them. Hmm, it’s difficult, but maybe better one dead citizen than the many that could die in a rampage killing. It’s a cost benefit thing.

I don’t know what folks think of these ideas. I’m optimistic that the policy would satisfy the NRA and gun lobby special interests and it would be great for the arms industry and the economy. Also, in time of international or civil war there would be so many gun ready combatants available for call up.

This policy could ensure a polite and careful citizenry throughout the entire USA. What’s not to like?

Alex.

[Mr. Perfect]

Folks,

Following another Fort Hood shooting, maybe US legislators should revisit the question of gun control.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... base-texas

Why.

As gun control is a difficult issue in the US,

Not really. It is mostly settled law.

I would like to offer an alternative for making streets and public places safer. A law could be passed making it compulsory for all US citizens to openly carry loaded firearms at all times.

For comfort and convenience we could not reasonably expect people to have the guns always in hand, so perhaps suitable quick draw holsters could be provided in ladies, gents and young people’s sizes. Also, there would need to be a minimum calibre and accuracy requirement to ensure stopping power.

We already have that. At gun ranges, everyone has a gun and virtually no crime is committed there.

Do you know why that is.

Of course, guns are not an effective deterrent if you can’t use them, so the NRA could be made responsible for compulsory firearms training in all schools and colleges.

Great idea. We used to do that in America. High Schools used to have shooting teams (google image "high school shooting teams") and children used to carry guns to school in rural areas hunting on the way in and on the way home.

And there were no school shootings. Do you know why.

Folk could be tested each year to check their quick draw capabilities are up to the mark and their compulsory firearms spot checked to ensure they are kept cleaned and loaded at all times.

I like this. This is a government subsidy I could get behind. It might even stimulate jobs.

There could be some difficulties. Rogue shooters could use assault rifles in their rampages and citizens armed only with pistols might suffer injury.

Why do you think that. If the rifle shooter misses and the handgun shooter doesn't, no problem.

Ethinker, do you know that "assault rifles" account for about 1% of gun murders? Do you know why that is.

To be reasonable, I don’t think it would be easy to compel everyone to carry an AK47, so perhaps further weaponry could be optional, provided that the compulsory weapon is ready and to hand.

Hey, if you can compel someone to buy insurance, why not a rifle? But I should say I prefer an FN FAL over an AK.

Another problem is the itchy trigger finger. Maybe in a bar room or at a prayer meeting someone might thoughtlessly finger their weapon and be swiftly gunned down by those around them. Hmm, it’s difficult, but maybe better one dead citizen than the many that could die in a rampage killing. It’s a cost benefit thing.

Ehtinker, we already have open carry in most states in the US and there is no record of this happening. I don't think you'll find any evidence of anything like this happening later than the late 1800's.

So rest easy, your concern is completely unfounded on this point, like all your others.

I don’t know what folks think of these ideas. I’m optimistic that the policy would satisfy the NRA and gun lobby special interests and it would be great for the arms industry and the economy. Also, in time of international or civil war there would be so many gun ready combatants available for call up.

This policy could ensure a polite and careful citizenry throughout the entire USA. What’s not to like?

Alex.

Well gun ownership and concealed carry has been on the increase for nigh on 30 years, and if it continues then pretty much everyone will be packing serious heat before long anyway, so in the end probably no need for a government solution.

Also E, your minders sent you into battle unprepared. Military Bases like FT Hood are gun free zones, this shooting demonstrating yet again that gun control doesn't work.

I mean, you may as well try to outlaw alcohol.

[manolo]

Well gun ownership and concealed carry has been on the increase for nigh on 30 years, and if it continues then pretty much everyone will be packing serious heat before long anyway, so in the end probably no need for a government solution.

Mr P,

That's good news. However, I'm not sure that concealed carry is effective or universal enough. This is a health and safety issue for all citizens of the US. It's not just the problem of getting the gun into your hand quickly enough to drop the shooter, there is an obvious deterrent effect in seeing the weapons readily available for action on everyone. I'm still keen on the quick draw holster idea. I've been thinking about these holsters. Admittedly some ladies might complain at holsters spoiling the lines of an elegant evening dress, and then there is the beach. Particularly on nude beaches there may be some complaints about the holsters getting in the way, so to speak. The legislation would need to be fine tuned on these points.

This brings us to your point about gun free zones, which is well taken. Under my plan, there would be no gun free zones in any place where the public might have access. It might be a good idea to have open gun racks (with loaded weapons) placed around bus stations, courthouses, hospitals, bus stations and the like, just in case someone isn't packing and needs immediate access. These could be provided on the federal budget and maybe funded by a tax on healthcare involving gunshot wounds.

Alex.

[Mr. Perfect]

Mr P,

That's good news. However, I'm not sure that concealed carry is effective or universal enough.

Just give it time.

This is a health and safety issue for all citizens of the US. It's not just the problem of getting the gun into your hand quickly enough to drop the shooter, there is an obvious deterrent effect in seeing the weapons readily available for action on everyone. I'm still keen on the quick draw holster idea. I've been thinking about these holsters. Admittedly some ladies might complain at holsters spoiling the lines of an elegant evening dress, and then there is the beach. Particularly on nude beaches there may be some complaints about the holsters getting in the way, so to speak. The legislation would need to be fine tuned on these points.

There are a lot of female friendly holster models already on the market, that are quite fashionable. Women are a huge part of the carry market in the US. I think you would enjoy googling on this topic.

We don't have too many nude beaches, so probably not a problem. Maybe a thigh strap, like the knives.

This brings us to your point about gun free zones, which is well taken. Under my plan, there would be no gun free zones in any place where the public might have access.

A great idea. Almost all of the shootings that make the news happend in "gun free zones". Obviously didn't work.

It might be a good idea to have open gun racks (with loaded weapons) placed around bus stations, courthouses, hospitals, bus stations and the like, just in case someone isn't packing and needs immediate access. These could be provided on the federal budget and maybe funded by a tax on healthcare involving gunshot wounds.

Sounds good. At my high school it was hard to find a truck without a gun rack. No school shootings either, do you know why that is.

In older days I think kids were able to just keep them at their desk at school. I would have to look into it. Maybe they kept them in coat closet, I'm not sure.

Rifles are not a particularly practical gun though for any of these purposes (which is why they are so rarely used, just a few percent of the time), they are more suitable for long ranges that you can't find in towns. A handgun works very well. We could just leave them lying all over the place. Sort of like condoms. You can get a condom almost anywhere now.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Something is wrong at Ft. Hood. One shooting incident on a military base is bizarre. Two indicates a serious problem which needs to be addressed.

[Doc]

Something is wrong at Ft. Hood. One shooting incident on a military base is bizarre. Two indicates a serious problem which needs to be addressed.

The first was terrorism. The second apparently not. Obama refuses to call the first Terrorism therefore Hassan still got his pay until he was convicted. several hundred thousand dollars as I recall. The survivors don't get anything for "Work place violence" Nada zip.

[Mr. Perfect]

Something is wrong at Ft. Hood. One shooting incident on a military base is bizarre. Two indicates a serious problem which needs to be addressed.

Boy are you right about that. Gun free zones.

[Doc]

Something is wrong at Ft. Hood. One shooting incident on a military base is bizarre. Two indicates a serious problem which needs to be addressed.

Boy are you right about that. Gun free zones.

Think of it this way: Obama is unable not only to provide security and US embassys and consulates, but he can't even provide security for US military bases.

There were two last year

Washington Navy Yard in Sept and Quantico last march. The Democrats really own this issue. But Obama the last military base shooting was under Clinton There were two of them Fort Bragg in1995 and Fairchild Air Force Base in 1994. So addressing Alex's original post -- He asked the wrong point. It is not lack of gun control fueling violence on military bases but rather Democratic presidents.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Something is wrong at Ft. Hood. One shooting incident on a military base is bizarre. Two indicates a serious problem which needs to be addressed.

Boy are you right about that. Gun free zones.

Gun free zones? WTH? Military are trained for loyalty. I don't care how many drugs are involved, a soldier firing indiscriminately at his comrades in arms strains all credibility.

[Mr. Perfect]

Soldiers are people and so can be criminals too. Gun free zones are simply a target for murderers. Most if not all of the high profile public shootings happen in gun free zones. May as well paint a target on yourself.

[manolo]

This brings us to your point about gun free zones, which is well taken. Under my plan, there would be no gun free zones in any place where the public might have access.

A great idea. Almost all of the shootings that make the news happend in "gun free zones". Obviously didn't work.

Mr P,

Good thinking so far. However, we have been discussing public spaces and there is still the danger of these 'gun free zones' appearing on citizen's private property.

I have been following the trial of Oscar Pistorius, the South African gun enthusiast who gunned his fiance to death through the bathroom door of their own home. If Miss Steenkampe had been wearing a quick draw holster whilst in the bathroom she could have quickly returned fire through the door and might be alive today.

So, in countries with high gun crime problems (such as USA) it might be useful to ban gun free zones altogether, including private homes and gardens etc. Of course it would not be enough to have one gun in a family home, as we saw with Pistorius. Each family member, visitor and guest would require their own personal protection. So, quick draw holsters could be made compulsory for all citizens at all times, including trips to the bathroom. It might be possible to allow them to be removed while sleeping, although this raises the possibility of another family member slipping the gun away before shooting them to death in their bed. Also it would be wise for the holsters to be kept on during sex, as many heated and jealous exchanges happen when aroused. For young people, there could be a formal coming of age time, when the holster is strapped on for the first time and the youth knows that those pesky parents will have to watch their mouths in future.

Enforcement could be tricky, but I'm sure we have the technology these days to ensure compliance, either by government CCTV camera in private homes or some form of implant to guarantee that the holsters (and loaded weapons) are always readily to hand.

Alex.

[Mr. Perfect]

Mr P,

Good thinking so far. However, we have been discussing public spaces and there is still the danger of these 'gun free zones' appearing on citizen's private property.

I have been following the trial of Oscar Pistorius, the South African gun enthusiast who gunned his fiance to death through the bathroom door of their own home. If Miss Steenkampe had been wearing a quick draw holster whilst in the bathroom she could have quickly returned fire through the door and might be alive today.

And if South Africa's gun laws worked then Miss Steenkampe would be alive today also. Right? We can agree on that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_le ... uth_Africa

Now Ethinker, I think everyone knows that you can kill people with a gun, or without a gun. As I'm sure aware someone mass killed with a knife recently, almost 30 people with a knife. So we should entertain also compulsory knife wielding and training. Every lethal weapon imaginable should be compulsory.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asi ... ay-attack/

So, in countries with high gun crime problems (such as USA)

This is a common low information conclusion about the United States. The high crime occurs where there is already state and local gun control laws. Places like Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, Los Angeles, etc. Democrat areas with gun control have the gun crime.

Just relieving these laws and letting people exercise their Constitutional rights will correct the problem.

it might be useful to ban gun free zones altogether, including private homes and gardens etc.

American homes are already pretty much gun rich homes. Except the Democrat areas where all the gun control and gun crime is.

Of course it would not be enough to have one gun in a family home, as we saw with Pistorius. Each family member, visitor and guest would require their own personal protection. So, quick draw holsters could be made compulsory for all citizens at all times, including trips to the bathroom. It might be possible to allow them to be removed while sleeping, although this raises the possibility of another family member slipping the gun away before shooting them to death in their bed. Also it would be wise for the holsters to be kept on during sex, as many heated and jealous exchanges happen when aroused. For young people, there could be a formal coming of age time, when the holster is strapped on for the first time and the youth knows that those pesky parents will have to watch their mouths in future.

We pretty much already have all that stuff. Except the common gun in the bedstand is even better than a holster.

I don't wear a holster to bed, for a reason. If it was better than this than I would.

http://www.crossbreedholsters.com/BedsideBackup.aspx

Enforcement could be tricky, but I'm sure we have the technology these days to ensure compliance, either by government CCTV camera in private homes or some form of implant to guarantee that the holsters (and loaded weapons) are always readily to hand.

Alex.

I think what Americans are willing to do on their own is not necessary to bring in the gov't. Except perhaps in the high crime Democrat zones. They could benefit a great deal. Your plans could help them a great deal, I'm open to that.

[Mr. Perfect]

Something is wrong at Ft. Hood. One shooting incident on a military base is bizarre. Two indicates a serious problem which needs to be addressed.

It should be added that in both cases people were aware of the situation in advance. So much for screening.

[Simple Minded]

Folks,

Following another Fort Hood shooting, maybe US legislators should revisit the question of gun control.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... base-texas

As gun control is a difficult issue in the US, I would like to offer an alternative for making streets and public places safer. A law could be passed making it compulsory for all US citizens to openly carry loaded firearms at all times. For comfort and convenience we could not reasonably expect people to have the guns always in hand, so perhaps suitable quick draw holsters could be provided in ladies, gents and young people’s sizes. Also, there would need to be a minimum calibre and accuracy requirement to ensure stopping power.

Of course, guns are not an effective deterrent if you can’t use them, so the NRA could be made responsible for compulsory firearms training in all schools and colleges. Folk could be tested each year to check their quick draw capabilities are up to the mark and their compulsory firearms spot checked to ensure they are kept cleaned and loaded at all times.

There could be some difficulties. Rogue shooters could use assault rifles in their rampages and citizens armed only with pistols might suffer injury. To be reasonable, I don’t think it would be easy to compel everyone to carry an AK47, so perhaps further weaponry could be optional, provided that the compulsory weapon is ready and to hand.

Another problem is the itchy trigger finger. Maybe in a bar room or at a prayer meeting someone might thoughtlessly finger their weapon and be swiftly gunned down by those around them. Hmm, it’s difficult, but maybe better one dead citizen than the many that could die in a rampage killing. It’s a cost benefit thing.

I don’t know what folks think of these ideas. I’m optimistic that the policy would satisfy the NRA and gun lobby special interests and it would be great for the arms industry and the economy. Also, in time of international or civil war there would be so many gun ready combatants available for call up.

This policy could ensure a polite and careful citizenry throughout the entire USA. What’s not to like?

Alex.

Alex,

You are making way too complicated, and therefore increasing cost of implementation and reducing any chance of success.

Open carry costs virtually nothing and open carry areas in the US have the lowest crime rates for obvious reasons.

When in doubt, trust people to do the right thing! You will rarely be disappointed!

[Typhoon]

For the ladies:



4.5mm "Kiss of Death"

For the hipster:



A stylish Vespa.

[Demon of Undoing]

Personally, I have long advocated an " emergency" class that would be instituted in kindergarten, scaled by age in terms of content and length . Start out teaching simple stuff ( poison safety, fire safety, how to call police, natural disasters, etc), but then later incorporating physical fitness in the form of martial arts and moving on to more in-depth, gradually complex training, like First Responder. By high school, there's no reason why everybody couldn't have had the teaching content for use of force training that we give to state certified law enforcement ( have you seen requirements for that? Maybe 75 hrs devoted to it all, including legality).

At the same time, you could teach women not to be rape victims, could get the boys' heads out of the XBox, convince the bad apples among them that if they pop off, they won't be the only one around that can break asses, AND actually get the populace to start taking charge of their own physical security and quit pawning everything off to the state. This could all be accomplished with a three hour a week course, which could be a catch all for everything from physical fitness to a civics lesson. It would greatly aid freedom and save tremendous time and money.

I am all for every able-bodied citizen being capable of being a last-ditch fighter. It's been that way throughout all of human history, in one way or another. If you can't fight you can either move or communicate, if you have the presence of mind and training to do so.

Spoiled little Hobitses, like their comforts too much, cheering on Sauron so they won't have to ever be afraid or uncomfortable.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Personally, I have long advocated an " emergency" class that would be instituted in kindergarten, scaled by age in terms of content and length . Start out teaching simple stuff ( poison safety, fire safety, how to call police, natural disasters, etc), but then later incorporating physical fitness in the form of martial arts and moving on to more in-depth, gradually complex training, like First Responder. By high school, there's no reason why everybody couldn't have had the teaching content for use of force training that we give to state certified law enforcement ( have you seen requirements for that? Maybe 75 hrs devoted to it all, including legality).

At the same time, you could teach women not to be rape victims, could get the boys' heads out of the XBox, convince the bad apples among them that if they pop off, they won't be the only one around that can break asses, AND actually get the populace to start taking charge of their own physical security and quit pawning everything off to the state. This could all be accomplished with a three hour a week course, which could be a catch all for everything from physical fitness to a civics lesson. It would greatly aid freedom and save tremendous time and money.

I am all for every able-bodied citizen being capable of being a last-ditch fighter. It's been that way throughout all of human history, in one way or another. If you can't fight you can either move or communicate, if you have the presence of mind and training to do so.

Spoiled little Hobitses, like their comforts too much, cheering on Sauron so they won't have to ever be afraid or uncomfortable.

+1

[monster_gardener]

Personally, I have long advocated an " emergency" class that would be instituted in kindergarten, scaled by age in terms of content and length . Start out teaching simple stuff ( poison safety, fire safety, how to call police, natural disasters, etc), but then later incorporating physical fitness in the form of martial arts and moving on to more in-depth, gradually complex training, like First Responder. By high school, there's no reason why everybody couldn't have had the teaching content for use of force training that we give to state certified law enforcement ( have you seen requirements for that? Maybe 75 hrs devoted to it all, including legality).

At the same time, you could teach women not to be rape victims, could get the boys' heads out of the XBox, convince the bad apples among them that if they pop off, they won't be the only one around that can break asses, AND actually get the populace to start taking charge of their own physical security and quit pawning everything off to the state. This could all be accomplished with a three hour a week course, which could be a catch all for everything from physical fitness to a civics lesson. It would greatly aid freedom and save tremendous time and money.

I am all for every able-bodied citizen being capable of being a last-ditch fighter. It's been that way throughout all of human history, in one way or another. If you can't fight you can either move or communicate, if you have the presence of mind and training to do so.

Spoiled little Hobitses, like their comforts too much, cheering on Sauron so they won't have to ever be afraid or uncomfortable.

Thank You VERY MUCH for Your Excellent Post, Bezerk Savant DOU.....

Seconded.

+5

Spoiled little Hobbitses

Maybe also little Hobbeses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes

[Simple Minded]

Personally, I have long advocated an " emergency" class that would be instituted in kindergarten, scaled by age in terms of content and length . Start out teaching simple stuff ( poison safety, fire safety, how to call police, natural disasters, etc), but then later incorporating physical fitness in the form of martial arts and moving on to more in-depth, gradually complex training, like First Responder. By high school, there's no reason why everybody couldn't have had the teaching content for use of force training that we give to state certified law enforcement ( have you seen requirements for that? Maybe 75 hrs devoted to it all, including legality).

At the same time, you could teach women not to be rape victims, could get the boys' heads out of the XBox, convince the bad apples among them that if they pop off, they won't be the only one around that can break asses, AND actually get the populace to start taking charge of their own physical security and quit pawning everything off to the state. This could all be accomplished with a three hour a week course, which could be a catch all for everything from physical fitness to a civics lesson. It would greatly aid freedom and save tremendous time and money.

I am all for every able-bodied citizen being capable of being a last-ditch fighter. It's been that way throughout all of human history, in one way or another. If you can't fight you can either move or communicate, if you have the presence of mind and training to do so.

Spoiled little Hobitses, like their comforts too much, cheering on Sauron so they won't have to ever be afraid or uncomfortable.

Well said DoU! In a bygone era, that was known as good parenting! Is it possible that much of the cultural decay in the US and other nations is not widespread, but a localphenomena produced by POS parents? Would a map of incidents relative to geography show isolated pockets of this cultural decay??

"At the same time, you could teach women not to be rape victims, could get the boys' heads out of the XBox, convince the bad apples among them that if they pop off, they won't be the only one around that can break asses, AND actually get the populace to start taking charge of their own physical security and quit pawning everything off to the state.

double Amen Brother!

Unfortunately, the promotion of the concept of victimhood is much more lucrative than the promotion of the concept of personal responsibility! Sheep are easier to herd than cats!

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

Make belief in America is, those doing these kind of things are deranged, have psychological problems, or are (if name sound middle eastern, like Hussein) terrorists (as Doc said the shooter B4 at the same military base was a terrorist because he was Muslim)

That's how America explains all these killings

Forgetting, a guy who volunteers (a volunteer army, nobody forcing him to) to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and start shooting innocent people without these people done anything to him or his, coming back home, he can not suddenly be reborn as an innocent kid just arrived from farm

NO, Fort Hood Shooter Was Not Angered When Told To Come Back Next Day

Wars are only legit as self defense .. Abu Gharib or shooting kids running after candy thrown out by US military is no self defense

That is why "suicide" is exploding among those coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan

Now, you at it again, Putin is the new Hitler

Folks, look at the mirror, something wrong

.

[Doc]

Personally, I have long advocated an " emergency" class that would be instituted in kindergarten, scaled by age in terms of content and length . Start out teaching simple stuff ( poison safety, fire safety, how to call police, natural disasters, etc), but then later incorporating physical fitness in the form of martial arts and moving on to more in-depth, gradually complex training, like First Responder. By high school, there's no reason why everybody couldn't have had the teaching content for use of force training that we give to state certified law enforcement ( have you seen requirements for that? Maybe 75 hrs devoted to it all, including legality).

At the same time, you could teach women not to be rape victims, could get the boys' heads out of the XBox, convince the bad apples among them that if they pop off, they won't be the only one around that can break asses, AND actually get the populace to start taking charge of their own physical security and quit pawning everything off to the state. This could all be accomplished with a three hour a week course, which could be a catch all for everything from physical fitness to a civics lesson. It would greatly aid freedom and save tremendous time and money.

I am all for every able-bodied citizen being capable of being a last-ditch fighter. It's been that way throughout all of human history, in one way or another. If you can't fight you can either move or communicate, if you have the presence of mind and training to do so.

Spoiled little Hobitses, like their comforts too much, cheering on Sauron so they won't have to ever be afraid or uncomfortable.

I was driving down the street to my home. Two girls were taking a walk on one side of teh street I would say they were around 11 to 12 years old. On the other side of the street a guy in a white van stopped at the end of his driveway to get his mail being pulling in. The girls, when they the van stop physically jumped.

Now my point is that the last time I checked a few years ago the number of child abductions by strangers was around 500 of the 50,000 annul child abductions. We are scaring the hell out of kids for what exactly? The same goes double for school shootings they are much rarer than child abduction bu strangers. In fact I would venture to say that all mass shootings added together are fewer than child abduction by strangers per year. Besides that I imagine there are many more children killed by their own parents than are killed in school shootings. Perhaps we should be teaching children self defense against their parents. Of course a lot of parents are killed by their children so maybe classes for them as well.

My uncle told me a story when he was a boy. He grew up poor. He lived in what is easiest described as a settlement on a hill. Basically a coal camp but not owned by the mining company. There was this big guy and a few houses away a little guy and his fairly nice looking wife. The big guy liked to drink and one night he went to his neighbors house and beat up th elittle guy and carried the guys wife over to his house and raped her all night. The guy's wife was devastated as likely was the little guy. No cops involved as the wife didn't want it. SO the little guy went out and bought a shotgun(As I recall it) The next time the big guy got drunk and decided to rape the woman again he was dead.

That is what a gun is needed for. In the big city you have to put your faith in the government A government who has no legal duty to protect anyone. Big government in the big city is much more likely than not run by liberals that feel they know what is best for you. But won't do much for you, as often as not, when someone commits violence against you. All the while telling you how dangerous things are because people have guns. As the bumper sticker goes (paraphrased slight) Liberal politicians like their peasant unarmed.

[manolo]

Open carry costs virtually nothing and open carry areas in the US have the lowest crime rates for obvious reasons.

SM,

This is an excellent argument for more of the same.

I think the idea of gun free zones is crazy, but even worse is gun free persons. The only way to surely eradicate gun crime from the USA is to make sure that no citizen is ever without a loaded firearm within immediate reach.

A gun free person is a walking soft target and an invitation for every and any nere-do-well to "make my day". A simple legislative requirement for citizens of the USA to pack heat at all times (I personally recommend the patented 'ethinker' quick draw holster) and gun crime is a thing of the past.

Of course talk of soft targets brings up the issue of bullet proof vests. Although limited in effect, such garments do have value.

http://www.safeguardarmour.co.uk/?gclid ... wwod2ygAig

Whether it's a day at the office or just hanging around the beach, you are never alone with cosy kevlar!

Alex.

[Doc]

.

Make belief in America is, those doing these kind of things are deranged, have psychological problems, or are (if name sound middle eastern, like Hussein) terrorists (as Doc said the shooter B4 at the same military base was a terrorist because he was Muslim)

EXCUSE ME !!!! I SAID NO SUCH THING>

But since you seem so ignorant of the actual facts. Hassan was in contact with Al Qaeda Yemen A MUSLIM EXTREMIST GROUP Prior to the Fort Hood Shooting.

That's how America explains all these killings[/quote]

Actually that is how you explain how America explains all these killings.

Forgetting, a guy who volunteers (a volunteer army, nobody forcing him to) to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and start shooting innocent people without these people done anything to him or his, coming back home, he can not suddenly be reborn as an innocent kid just arrived from farm

NO, Fort Hood Shooter Was Not Angered When Told To Come Back Next Day

Wars are only legit as self defense .. Abu Gharib or shooting kids running after candy thrown out by US military is no self defense[

90% of the muslims killed in IRaq were killed by other Muslims. And in fact the people that killed babies whiel US troops were handing out candy was MUSLIMS. WHY? Are Muslims so sick in the head or what? Maybe that makes American troops depressed at seeing so much Muslim sickness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/inter ... epage&_r=0

Blast Kills Up to 27 Iraqis, Including Many Children


By KIRK SEMPLE
Published: July 13, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 13 - A suicide car bomb was detonated today near a group of American soldiers who were distributing candy to children in a poor neighborhood here, killing as many as 27 people, about two dozen of them children, and wounding dozens more, government and hospital officials said.

Hadi Mizban/Associated Press

Reuters

An Iraqi woman reacts to the suicide car bombing today near her home in Baghdad.

The attack, which also killed one American soldier, caused the highest death toll among children since a similar incident last September, when a pair of car bombs killed at least 34 children who had gathered around American troops during the inauguration of a sewage plant in western Baghdad.

The explosion today in the predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad al- Jedidah provoked a heartwrenching scene of bloodshed and grief. Women dressed in black wailed and slapped themselves on the chest and face in a ritual of deep sorrow as bodies were placed in crude coffins and carried away. The blast left a wide crater in the street around which childrens' colored slippers, pieces of flesh and shrapnel had fallen.

"They were delivering some sweets and toys to the children and all of a sudden a car drove towards the U.S. military vehicles and exploded," said Basim al-Gaiedi, 45, an engineer who lives in the neighborhood.

The attack came on yet another day of roiling violence, including the killing of two members of the Iraqi military, and mounting allegations of sectarian vengeance between Shiites and Sunnis in this city of six million.

An official at Kindi Hospital, where many of the car bomb victims were taken, said the hospital received 25 corpses, all children, and 24 wounded. An official at the Interior Ministry put the death toll at 27, of which 24 were children, and said another 24 were wounded.

But residents in the Baghdad al- Jedidah neighborhood said the death toll could climb higher. One eyewitness said the blast destroyed part of a house, killing a family that was eating breakfast in the yard. Another witness said four laborers resting on the side of the road were also killed.

"The car bomber made a deliberate decision to attack one of our vehicles as the soldiers were engaged in a peaceful operation with Iraqi citizens," said Maj. Russ Goemaere, a spokesman for the United States Army's Third Infantry Division, which is responsible for overall security in Baghdad. "The terrorist undoubtedly saw the children around the Humvee as he attacked."

Residents said American soldiers had passed through the neighborhood earlier in the day issuing warnings through a loudspeaker that the area might be a target of a car bomb.

But Lt. Col. Clifford Kent, the public affairs officer for the Third Infantry Division, discounted the residents' accounts and said the military had no knowledge of a planned car bomb attack. "To say that in that neighborhood at that time on this day there was going to be this kind of attack, it's very rare to have pinpoint intelligence like that," he said. "It may have totally been an opportunity of that guy being at the right spot at the right time for what he intended to do."

Col. Kent also denied that the soldiers were distributing candy and small toys to the children at the time of the blast, though he did not disclose the nature of the unit's mission.

Convoys of American soldiers regularly patrol Baghdad's neighborhoods, sometimes as displays of force though also to conduct planned house searches and arrests.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00336.html

Bombing in Iraq Kills Mostly Children

Falah Jabbar, his wife and their 4-day-old daughter arrive at a hospital in eastern Baghdad after they were wounded in a suicide bombing.
Falah Jabbar, his wife and their 4-day-old daughter arrive at a hospital in eastern Baghdad after they were wounded in a suicide bombing. (By Khalid Mohammed -- Associated Press)

By Andy Mosher and Khalid Alsaffar
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 14, 2005

BAGHDAD, July 13 -- Inside the morgue at Kindi Hospital lay the remains of Amjad Kudeer. Flying shrapnel from a suicide car bomb struck him in the head and chest Wednesday, killing him instantly. He was 13.

Outside the door to the refrigerated room, Amjad's sobbing mother called his name over and over, as if trying to summon him back to life. Then she looked up and asked: "What did he do to deserve this? They are killing children. Why? Why?"

Amjad and more than a dozen other children from east Baghdad's al-Khalij neighborhood made up the majority of the 27 people killed when a suicide bomber drove into a crowd that had gathered around U.S. soldiers who were handing out candy and small toys, police said. The attack also killed one soldier, according to the U.S. military, and wounded at least 50 people.

In north Baghdad, meanwhile, 11 Sunni Muslim men were found dead hours after being arrested by Iraqi police, according to the head of the government agency that administers Sunni religious affairs.

The suicide bombing occurred at 10:50 a.m. in al-Khalij, a mostly Shiite Muslim district adjacent to a U.S. military base in the Iraqi army's former Rashid Barracks. Two Army Humvees had parked in the street, and their crews blocked off a small area with razor wire and began giving gifts to children who immediately swarmed around them. A speeding Suzuki sedan plowed into their midst and exploded, turning a festive scene into one of carnage, witnesses said.
ad_icon

"The kids were laughing and playing with the solders when the suicide bomber drove his car bomb very fast into the crowd and blew himself up, killing all the kids who were around the soldiers, and some cleaners who were there," said Ali Hussein, a police officer.

The attack was grimly reminiscent of one last September, when several bombs detonated at a ceremony celebrating the opening of a sewage plant, killing 35 children who were accepting candy from American soldiers. In addition, it was the second suicide bombing in Baghdad in four days to kill more than 20 people. On Sunday, a man wearing an explosive belt blew himself up at the entrance to a military recruiting center, killing at least 21 people.

Iraqi security forces and foreign troops have been frequent targets during the nearly two-year-old insurgency in Iraq. But Hussein, who was shot in the right leg last week in an attack that killed another officer, said targeting children was beyond comprehension. "I do not know how anyone in the world -- whether they believe or do not believe in God -- could do something like kill a kid," he said. The attackers "are after us and the American forces, and we understand that because we are after them, too. But how could they hurt those innocent kids?"

A U.S. military spokesman, Maj. Russ Goemaere, said in a statement that "the terrorist undoubtedly saw the children around the Humvee as he attacked. The complete disregard for civilian life in this attack is absolutely abhorrent."

The car bombing also destroyed two houses, killing several people inside. Ahmad Kareem, 17, said he had been in one of the houses with six members of his family when the bomber struck.

"I was sitting in the living room, and there were some U.S. soldiers and Hummers outside. The kids gathered around the solders," Ahmad said afterward, a bandage around his head and his shirt covered with blood. "All of a sudden I heard a big boom, and my head started bleeding. The house became dark, as if the night had come back again, and black smoke was the only thing I could see."

Ahmad said he was the only one in the house who had been able to come home from the hospital. "Thank God, no one died, but my oldest sister is in critical condition," he said.

[/quote]

[Mr. Perfect]

SM,

This is an excellent argument for more of the same.

True. Gun crime has been dropping for 20-30 years as concealed and open carry becomes more ubiquitous. I want more of that.

I think the idea of gun free zones is crazy, but even worse is gun free persons.

I'm glad you've come over to our side. Gun free zones have been proven to be magnets for loony killers, who don't aren't too loony to understand that gun free zones are full of defenseless people.

If you'll notice we've never had a spree shooting at a gun range.

The only way to surely eradicate gun crime from the USA is to make sure that no citizen is ever without a loaded firearm within immediate reach.

Actually if you just move out of the Democrat crime hot zones your odds of being murdered drop to near eradication levels. Since no country has eradicated crime or gun crime this is a workable compromise, except I don't want all those Democrat criminals moving to my area. The real compromise is to implement your program in Democrat areas. However, Low T Democrats have real phobias about guns, so may practice civil disobedience, nullifying the benefits of such a law. In this light, you may consider gun crime in Democrat areas as Darwinism, and just let nature take it's course.

A gun free person is a walking soft target and an invitation for every and any nere-do-well to "make my day". A simple legislative requirement for citizens of the USA to pack heat at all times (I personally recommend the patented 'ethinker' quick draw holster) and gun crime is a thing of the past.

Gun crime is mostly a thing of the past where open and concealed carry is legal. Just have to work on the Democrats. I think you have your work cut out for you among the gunphobic Democrats.

Of course talk of soft targets brings up the issue of bullet proof vests. Although limited in effect, such garments do have value.

http://www.safeguardarmour.co.uk/?gclid ... wwod2ygAig

Whether it's a day at the office or just hanging around the beach, you are never alone with cosy kevlar!

Alex.

Looking at the data, you are more likely to be killed by a shark at the beach than be shot so maybe when it comes to the beach your should look at legislation on shark deterrent.

However I would recommend Kevlar in some of these Democrat areas. The poor souls stuck in these areas need all the help they can get. Everyone else including rich white Democrats avoids these areas like the plague because Democrats have made them so dangerous.

[manolo]

Looking at the data, you are more likely to be killed by a shark at the beach than be shot so maybe when it comes to the beach your should look at legislation on shark deterrent.

Mr P,

That's a good point. Continuing the health and safety motif, compulsory spear guns required for all bathers around the coasts of the USA will serve a dual purpose. A prime use would be to keep other bathers out of our personal space (armed bathing is polite bathing) with the bonus of shark steaks for the barbe.

Of course this raises the question of swimming pools. There are unlikely to be sharks in there (at least the non human kind) and a load of spear guns could be cumbersome in smaller spaces. Firearms are not best placed for underwater defence so what to do? For starters, I would recommend the APS underwater assault rifle, courtesy of our Russian friends. The 5.66mm steel bolts should provide a quick answer to any aqueous disagreements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS_underwater_rifle

If everyone was supplied with one of these it would make for a much more secure and relaxed time splashing in the pool.

Alex.