How can we guard against this?

O

OhioGuy

New member
http://www.newsweek.com/american-is...e-us-gun-laws-carry-out-mass-shootings-761115

Assuming the article is actually accurate, what actions (if any) could prevent someone with no criminal record from acquiring a weapon to use in carrying out an attack? Especially if the bad actor is a "converted" home grown US citizen who isn't on anyone's watch list or radar? A guy with a criminal background and history of domestic abuse slipped through...how much easier for some young college student who's never had a speeding ticket but has become disgruntled and radicalized by YouTube?

Clearly the tone of the article is meant to imply that the availability of guns (at all) is making this country more vulnerable to terrorists. So there's an agenda to the writing and I'm suspicious of that. But it is disconcerting.

Someone i know recently observed that people who are intent upon carrying out attacks may not be deterred at all by the idea of armed citizens... they'll just increase their arms and armor. I could see that. A shopper armed with a Shield or PPS won't be much of a match for a suicidal attacker with a rifle and body armor. :(

Not sure where I'm going with it. I carry to protect myself and my family from this if it ever happens. But it seems the bad guys are upping their game.
 
You can not protect yourself against every thing. Evil does exist in some people and they will use what ever is available to them to cause harm to as many as possible, airplanes, bombs, trucks, ect. all we can do is our best.
 
....what actions (if any) could prevent someone with no criminal record from acquiring a weapon to use in carrying out an attack?
Click to expand...
Why should the question be limited to those with no criminal record?

Anyone can acquire weapons.
 
People on the terror watch list can buy guns. So no, there isn't a way to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.
 
Terrorists around the world can easily obtain whatever weapons they want- Full auto rifles in gun-restrictive France, for example, RPGs, explosives, etc. Weapon restrictions are no obstacle. Also, the recent trend has been to drive vehicles into crowds.

Issuing a directive to take advantage of our gun laws may simply be a propaganda ploy to fire up gun control advocates here in hopes of disarming potential victims.
 
If you mean how can we as a society guard against jihadis arming themselves in the US according to US law, we can't. And they have proven that without access to firearms they will use cars and trucks, bombs, and, lest we forget, hijacked planes. Intelligence is often our best weapon - I often wonder how many plans have been thwarted that we don't even know about.

If you mean how we as individuals guard against such things, only by being observant, reporting suspicious behaviors to authorities, and, as a last resort, employing arms when needed to end an incident.
 
It's all quite interesting really. All those so-called assault rifles in the picture and a desire to make everyone believe that the answer to it all is to ban guns. People seem to completely forget about 'box cutters' being used in the 911 attacks.

It does make one wonder though....how many threats to human life can be removed with just what is in that picture.
 
...what actions (if any) could prevent someone with no criminal record from acquiring a weapon to use in carrying out an attack?
Click to expand...
The only way I know would be to lock up anyone who has the capability to carry out an attack.

Freedom means people can make their own choices. Reality means that some people will use their freedom to harm others. Those who can't accept the latter will try to attack the former in various ways.
Clearly the tone of the article is meant to imply that the availability of guns (at all) is making this country more vulnerable to terrorists.
Click to expand...
Right. Because when bad guys don't have access to guns, they're totally harmless...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attack Truck Attack. 8 dead, about 12 injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack Truck Attack. 86 dead, 468 injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_West_Berlin_discotheque_bombing Bomb attack. 3 killed, 230 injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire Arson attack. 87 people killed using approximately $1 worth of gasoline.
 
No set of laws can possibly prevent someone from inflicting violence upon others if they have it in their mind to do so. In this sense, morality cannot be legislated. Guns will always be able to be accessed illegally and used for criminal purposes. No new set of laws will remedy this. The liberals who argue for gun control just doesn't seem to grasp the fact that criminals don't regard the law.
 
Let's all take a look at where most of these whack jobs start shooting the
place up at, shall we? Let's also look at what many of them do as soon as armed response arrives.

They generally start shooting up a GUN FREE ZONE. As soon as they are faced with an armed response, they shoot themselves.

Most of these "mentally unbalanced" people are coherent enough to KNOW
exactly where a majority of people are most helpless, and what their future is to be,
as soon as anybody else with a gun shows up. So it would seem, to me, that we need
to relax the gun laws for law abiding citizens, and get rid of gun free zones. Because
most of these folks who go on rampages aren't real enthusiastic about anybody else in the area having a gun. So if they KNOW other people are armed, that, IMHO, is the best deterrent.

When somebody starts clucking about "how easy it is to get a gun", I always
respond with "Really? Then go get me one, right now." I guess it isn't THAT damn
easy, because NOBODY EVER returned with an "easy" gun, yet...
 
I think anyone interested in really looking into this issue should spend some time researching the international arms market and it's relation to the international drug market.
The idea that full shipping containers of heroin originating from radicalized regions can be brought into the US and Mexico, but guns readily available through open air markets in those same regions that smell like any industrial equipment can not, is ridiculous.
Firearms are not cost efficient tools for terror attacks. That is why they don't use them overseas in areas where REAL AKs are in every home. The alternatives are much worse.
 
We learned “a (smart) dedicated attacker will succeed”.
Haven’t seen many exceptions.

If you look at the plots the Feds have stopped, virtually all would balance out Albert Einstein on the IQ scale.
 
The only way to prevent all crime is to remove all freedom.
I, for one, don't want that to happen. I would rather risk dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery.
 
They generally start shooting up a GUN FREE ZONE. As soon as they are faced with an armed response, they shoot themselves.
Click to expand...

Not this mischaracterization again. First, most mass shootings are not in gun-free zones. Most public mass shooters are in gun-free zones, but a lot certainly are not. Beyond that, when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is faced with an armed response, MOST public mass shooters do not kill themselves. As per this FBI study...

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf

Active shooters only kill themselves about 40% of the time and some of those are AFTER doing battle with the cops.

So let's stop the self deception of myth that if such a shooter faces resistance that all of a sudden he will commit de facto suicide and peace will descend on the crime scene as all danger slips away. It doesn't work like that and never has. Some will, but some will also fight for a while before committing suicide. Some fight to the death. Some escape. Some just surrender, though rarely (if ever) immediately.

Here are just a few that didn't just commit suicide as soon as they were faced with armed resistance.

Klebold and Harris didn't stop when confronted by armed response, exchanging shots with SRO.
Whitman @ UT didn't.
Nathan Desai 2016 mass shooting in Houston, fought with cops and was killed
Dionisio Garza III 2016 mass shooting in Houston fought with cops and LTC holder who was wounded through both legs, crippled.
Tyler Courthouse Square shooter didn't just commit suicide, killed exchanged fire with law enforcement and Mark Wilson (chl holder) who was killed
Sutherland Springs - fought back against good Sam.
Pulse Night Club - exchanged shots with security guard at entrance at the start of his mass shooting
1984 San Ysidro McDonald's shooting, killed by SWAT sniper
Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, California, exchanged fire with cops
Nadal Hasan, Fort Hood, exchanged fire with military police
Christopher Harper-Mercer, at Umpqua Community College battled cops before committing suicide
Aaron Alexis - Naval Yard shooter battled security and cops, hitting multiple, and even taking the gun from one of them
2016 Dallas Police shooting, fought with and killed officers, had to be killed by robot with a bomb
Here is one you probably didn't hear of, not because of some media conspiracy, but because it wasn't public. North Texas came Sept. 10, 2017 Spencer James Hight, 32, invaded a Dallas Cowboys watch party at the home of his estranged wife and opened fire, fatally shooting eight people and injuring another. He was killed by a responding officer.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article176545291.html#storylink=cpy
Cedric Ford, Kansas lawnmower factory shooting, died in a battle with cops
Pedro Vargas, Hialeah, FL apartment building shooting, killed by cops
Michael Page, Sikh Temple shooting, died in battle with cops, actually ambushing one on his arrival, shooting him 15(?) times.
Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez made attacks on two military facilities, was killed in battle with cops
In 2012, Vic Stacy became a hero in the Peach House RV Park shooting by making long distance shots with his pistol and stopping a gunman who had killed three, their dogs, and was battling with a cop that had been ambushed - heralded as having stopped a mass shooting, Stacy was exchanged shots with the gunman.

So let's give up this preposterously naive notion that a mass shooter is going to just fold up and commit suicide at the first sign of armed response. This is a great way to end up injured, crippled, or killed by underestimating your opposition. Police and concealed carry people who have done battle with mass shooters have ended up injured and killed. Vanquish the thought from your mind that a mass shooter isn't going to fight back.

No doubt, a bunch of mass shooters do commit suicide. A bunch will long before cops ever arrive or before ever being faced with armed response. They often have a plan and work through it to culmination, which is their own suicide. The don't want to do jail time, but NEVER assume this will be the case.

In keeping with this thread, it should be pointed out that several of the shooters in the above incidents either had no criminal history or no criminal history that would disallow them purchase and ownership of firearms.
 
If someone is intent on mass killing, there is little that gun laws can do to prevent it. Guns are not very effective in wiping out large amounts of individuals by one person. Vegas was an anomaly. Even then, how many were killed? Double digits...

I'll say it again - a gun is ineffective in generating mass casualties by a single individual.
 
Vegas was an anomaly.
Click to expand...

I am sure people thought Whitman's shooting in Austin was an anomaly. Luby's probably was as well. I know folks thought the 2009 Fort Hood shooting was an anomaly, then it happened again in 2014 by a soldier who killed three, wounded 14.

Only the future will tell if Vegas was an anomaly or not.

Even then, how many were killed? Double digits...

I'll say it again - a gun is ineffective in generating mass casualties by a single individual.
Click to expand...

Casualties are not just those that are killed. Vegas was the largest mass shooting in the US. 58 were killed. Hundreds were injured. AND, he did it from what would be considered sniper distances, hundreds of yards away, by a person with no known formal training and limited experience.

Whether or not one considers a gun effective or ineffective for inflicting mass casualties is moot. The impact on the nation was significant. The event stymied some significant legislation for us as well.
 
Casualties are not just those that are killed. Vegas was the largest mass shooting in the US. 58 were killed. Hundreds were injured. AND, he did it from what would be considered sniper distances, hundreds of yards away, by a person with no known formal training and limited experience.
Click to expand...

He'd have been deadlier with a heavy truck..... or an armored bulldozer ....or a bomb ..... or chlorine gas ..... it's a high density, soft target..... and those won't go away .....

The impact on the nation was significant.
Click to expand...

...only because it fit the news media template .... if it bleeds, it leads ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top