Terrorism and gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.

RAfiringline

New member
Every time a terrorist attack occurs, there's rhetoric about not giving in to the fear and bad reactions that the terrorists are trying to create, for their own purposes.

As usual, after any mass shooting, there's talk about increased gun control, with a lot of references to what Australia did in eliminating civilian ownership of high capacity semi-auto guns.

Isn't curtailing / revoking non-terrorist, non-criminal US citizens' gun rights
a form of caving in to fear along the lines that terrorists want?

And, if terrorists and nuts start using vehicles to run over people in crowded places, are we going to curtail car ownership?
 
Where's the ban on rent-a-trucks?

A point I raised myself, recently.

When these attack take place I don't ever remember the perpetrators jumping on public transport to get to the scene of the crime, but no one calls for a ban on privately owned cars...
 
Isn't curtailing / revoking non-terrorist, non-criminal US citizens' gun rights
a form of caving in to fear along the lines that terrorists want?

Terrorists couldn't care less about gun rights in America. But more gun control will not prevent further attacks, neither will more firearms. So both sides of the debate are talking rubbish to a certain extent.
 
What bothers me most about the latest debate is that it is focused much more on gun control than on the actual problem of terrorism and mass shootings.

I think the terrorists would favor more gun control in America as it would almost certainly assure less possible resistance against their acts of terror.
 
The events in San Bernardino were horrible; but I wonder what may have happened if people were permitted to carry concealed weapons.
 
Terrorists couldn't care less about gun rights in America. But more gun control will not prevent further attacks, neither will more firearms. So both sides of the debate are talking rubbish to a certain extent.

I think this is pretty much spot on.

Terrorism is a geopolitical problem that needs geopolitical input and solutions.

Guns, violence with guns, gun control and all that are domestic issues.

They are unrelated regardless of what they used in California and how they got them. If they hadn't had guns, they would have used something else....

With terrorists you need to address their motives, not their tools, for a truly effective solution.
 
Timothy McVeigh killed a bunch of people with a truck and a load of fertilizer.

McVeigh's inspiration was The Turner Diaries, so perhaps we should ban freedom of the press while we're at it...
 
The premise of The Turner Diaries was the more you clamp down on people the more opposition, or resistance you are going to have. Hence, if the terrorism can force, or more correctly, provide an excuse to clamp down, the more violence you're going to have. Gun control would benefit the terrorist, which is the whole idea behind the terrorism.

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" doesn't just apply to pysics, except in politics you can scratch out the "equal" part.
 
ence, if the terrorism can force, or more correctly, provide an excuse to clamp down, the more violence you're going to have. Gun control would benefit the terrorist, which is the whole idea behind the terrorism.

How would gun control benefit terrorists. ?
 
More unamed victims? More violence, particularly the strong vs the weak. More crime, the strong could just take anything they want from someone weaker.
We would be doing the job of the terrorists, if not opening the door (wider) for them.

"God made man, Sam Colt made all men equal" is more than an advertising slogan.
 
More unamed victims? More violence, particularly the strong vs the weak. More crime, the strong could just take anything they want from someone weaker.
We would be doing the job of the terrorists, if not opening the door (wider) for them.

Why does that not happen in some countries with strict gun control. ?
 
Why does that not happen in some countries with strict gun control. ?

It does. Most countries with "strict gun control" also have strict "news control." so you don't hear about it. In any country with strict gun control, the news media can usually be shut down at any time if the government deems that they are getting out of control. What appears to be called freedom of the press on the surface, isn't.

Another major factor is a homogenous population. I daresay when Northern Ireland becomes overrun by undesirable minorities, you will see a shift in attitude towards strict gun control but, by then, it will be too late.
 
Smaller countries? Different demographics? Smaller area for law enforcement to cover? Actually punish criminals instead of import them?

If I call my nearest law officer in the event of a break-in or intruder,and he immediately raced over here with sirens blasting, the minimum response time is 20 minutes. Do I tell the intruder to please wait? That's assuming I have time to call or am able to call.

In the San Bernadino attack, supposedly SWAT was close by when the call went out, yet the shooters did their deed, walked out to their car and drove out of the parking lot and were caught hours later!

European demographics are changing rapidly, maybe you'll get to experience what we are trying to resist, first hand.
 
In any country with strict gun control, the news media can usually be shut down at any time if the government deems that they are getting out of control. What appears to be called freedom of the press on the surface, isn't.
That depends on what you call strict gun control.



Another major factor is a homogenous population. I daresay when Northern Ireland becomes overrun by undesirable minorities, you will see a shift in attitude towards strict gun control but, by then, it will be too late.
There are plenty of undesirables here aready. :D
 
If I call my nearest law officer in the event of a break-in or intruder,and he immediately raced over here with sirens blasting, the minimum response time is 20 minutes. Do I tell the intruder to please wait?

When seconds count..the Police are only MOMENTS away.

As a former LEO i can tell you that the number of times we get to a hot call and catch the suspect at the scene is fairly rare

Just plain luck of proximity to the call is the deciding factor.
 
How would gun control benefit terrorists. ?

By ensuring their victims are not armed. Seems pretty obvious

Neither terrorists nor common criminals are particularly inhibited by laws restricting weapons
 
European demographics are changing rapidly, maybe you'll get to experience what we are trying to resist, first hand.


I am well aware of terrorist threats firearms police response times etc. It might be new to America but not here.

Fact Sheet on the conflict in and about Northern Ireland.

Every day of the year marks the anniversary of some
one’s death
as a result of conflict in and about Northern Ireland.
3,725 people were killed as a result of the conflict.
Approximately 47,541 people were injured.
There were 36,923 shootings.
16,209 bombings were conducted.
Between 1969 and 1998, 1,533 of the deaths as a res
ult of the conflict were under the age of 25. 257 of those killed
were under the age of 18.

By ensuring their victims are not armed. Seems pretty obvious

Neither terrorists nor common criminals are particularly inhibited by laws restricting weapons

That woint stop terrorist atacks, it could possibly help stop some after they happen. If some think terrorists will be put of attacking America because some are armed they are kidding themselvs.

Terrorists always go after soft targets, which is another name for "helpless victim rich environmen
No they doint thats another misconception. These people doint care if they live or die.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top