Can you prove they are? And then can you explain the disparity of gun deaths in the United States compared to the countries with stricter gun control. Less innocent people are being killed by guns in those countries. Isn't that a good thing?
Lots of info out there about the incredible number of people killed in the US per 1,000 population than other countries, which is a much more meaningful stat. Just for an example, there are 10.25 firearm related fatalities in the US per 1,000 people. In the UK there are .24 firearm related fatalities per 1,000 people.
Despite these figures it's obvious that the answer to protecting ourselves against organized terrorist attacks, drunks, criminals, crazies, or lone wolf gunmen is clearly more guns, everywhere. Schools, churches, banks, courthouses, street corners. The other industrialized nations of the world with strict gun laws and exponentially lower gun related deaths are clearly on the wrong path.
Stats are per year, per country, per 1,000 residents.
I need new readers. Stats are per year, per country, per 100,00 residents.
What in tarnation kinda edumacation all y'all got down there in Tejas? 😮
100,00?
😛
And y'all fixin' ta call all us Sooners dense. Hoooooo-doggies!
You know what I mean! Look, our education system has produced the likes of George Bush, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, the list goes on and on.
Oh, wait............
That does not answer my question BHawk. Are the British and Japanese less free because they cannot openly buy guns as we can here in America?
No.
And why does owning a gun = feedom here in America?
I look at it from the other direction. We can own a gun because we are free to do so. Basic rights and freedoms outlined by the people who started the place to begin with included the right to arm yourself, granted, in an 18th Century mindset, but that right remains. You also have the freedom to not own a gun.
O.K. fair enough I see where you are coming from now. thanks for taking the time to respond
I love when views and ideas are clarifies and explained around here, you know, when actual communication takes place.
I mean what could possibly go wrong.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/23/recruiting-center-shot-fired.html
Can you prove they are? And then can you explain the disparity of gun deaths in the United States compared to the countries with stricter gun control. Less innocent people are being killed by guns in those countries. Isn't that a good thing?
Lots of info out there about the incredible number of people killed in the US per 1,000 population than other countries, which is a much more meaningful stat. Just for an example, there are 10.25 firearm related fatalities in the US per 1,000 people. In the UK there are .24 firearm related fatalities per 1,000 people.
Despite these figures it's obvious that the answer to protecting ourselves against organized terrorist attacks, drunks, criminals, crazies, or lone wolf gunmen is clearly more guns, everywhere. Schools, churches, banks, courthouses, street corners. The other industrialized nations of the world with strict gun laws and exponentially lower gun related deaths are clearly on the wrong path.
Stats are per year, per country, per 1,000 residents.
I need new readers. Stats are per year, per country, per 100,00 residents.
What in tarnation kinda edumacation all y'all got down there in Tejas? 😮
100,00?
😛
And y'all fixin' ta call all us Sooners dense. Hoooooo-doggies!
You know what I mean! Look, our education system has produced the likes of George Bush, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, the list goes on and on.
Oh, wait............
Bush went to Kinkaid, a private school in Houston.
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/army-to-recruiters-treat-armed-citizens-as-security-threat-1.359134
Army to recruiters: Treat armed citizens as security threat
By Travis J. Tritten
Stars and Stripes
Published: July 22, 2015
WASHINGTON — The Army has warned its recruiters to treat the gun-toting civilians gathering at centers across the country in the wake of the Chattanooga, Tenn., shooting as a security threat.
Soldiers should avoid anyone standing outside the recruiting centers attempting to offer protection and report them to local law enforcement and the command if they feel threatened, according to a U.S. Army Recruiting Command policy letter issued Monday.
Armed citizens — some associated with activist groups and militias — were standing vigil outside recruiting centers in Wisconsin, Georgia, Tennessee, Idaho and elsewhere this week, saying they want to provide protection to servicemembers barred from carrying firearms on duty. Four Marines and a sailor were killed by Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a 24-year-old Kuwait-born resident of Tennessee, during an attack Thursday on a strip mall recruiting center and a Navy facility that is being investigated as an act of terrorism.
Abdulazeez fired into the front of the recruiting station but there were no casualties. The five servicemembers were killed during an attack on the Navy Operational Support Center. A Navy officer and a Marine reportedly fired at the gunman, although it is unclear why they were armed. It is against Defense Department policy for anyone other than military police or law enforcement to carry weapons on federal property.
“I’m sure the citizens mean well, but we cannot assume this in every case and we do not want to advocate this behavior,” according to the Army Command Operations Center-Security Division letter, which was authenticated by the service.
Recruiters were ordered not to interact or acknowledge the armed civilians, who have been greeted by a mix of concern, indifference and gratitude by the public.
“If questioned by these alleged concerned citizens, be polite, professional and terminate the conversation immediately and report the incident to local law enforcement …,” the command advised.
As the incidents crop up around the country, police could be asked to confront the civilians with guns on the Army’s behalf.
“Ensure your recruiters clearly articulate to local police the civilian may be armed and in possession of a conceal/carry permit,” it told the centers.
The command said recruiters should also immediately fill out an Army security report.
Kelli Bland, a spokeswoman for Army Recruiting Command, said the service has been increasing vigilance following the Chattanooga shooting and that local residents can help in other ways.
“Local communities can support our security by reporting suspicious activity, particularly around recruiting centers,” Bland wrote in an email to Stars and Stripes.
Concerned citizens began gathering at the centers shortly after the shooting in Tennessee, and governors in some states ordered recruiters to armories or to be armed for protection against potential terrorist attacks. Congress has also pushed for the Defense Department to lift its current policy.
The founder and president of Oath Keepers, a Constitution activist group based in Las Vegas, issued a national call Tuesday to guard centers, while members were already guarding centers in Tennessee, Arkansas and Oklahoma, president Stewart Rhodes told the Associated Press.
Rhodes told the news service it’s “absolutely insane” that recruiters aren’t allowed to be armed.
“They’re sitting ducks,” Rhodes said Tuesday. “They’d be better off if they were walking down the streets of Baghdad, because at least in Baghdad, they could move. Here, they’re stationary.”
In Lewiston, Idaho, three men with a group known as “3 percenters” — a national alliance with members who prepare “for any situation, man-made or natural” — were standing watch outside a recruiting office this week, the TNS wire service reported.
“They supported us, and now we’re here showing them that we support them,” said Matt Dillard, of Clarkston, Wash., who was among the men.
tritten.travis@stripes.com
Still feel safe?
I mean what could possibly go wrong.
Who will protect us from the good guys with a gun who are protecting us from the other good guys?
And just think, some people wanted to put people like this in every school on the country.
That's why you keep the muzzle pointed at the ground.
That's why you keep the muzzle pointed at the ground.
well there you go. this wasn't improper handling of a weapon, this was proper handling of a weapon. not much else to discuss.
That's why you keep the muzzle pointed at the ground.
well there you go. this wasn't improper handling of a weapon, this was proper handling of a weapon. not much else to discuss.
No, what we have is just an example of good people watching each other's back, giving
unhappy individuals a chance to ridicule them and dump on the whole thing.
That's why you keep the muzzle pointed at the ground.
well there you go. this wasn't improper handling of a weapon, this was proper handling of a weapon. not much else to discuss.
No, what we have is just an example of good people watching each other's back, giving
unhappy individuals a chance to ridicule them and dump on the whole thing.
well i don't think i'm unhappy, maybe what i said wasn't accurate. i just thought that is what you meant.
That's why you keep the muzzle pointed at the ground.
well there you go. this wasn't improper handling of a weapon, this was proper handling of a weapon. not much else to discuss.
No, what we have is just an example of good people watching each other's back, giving
unhappy individuals a chance to ridicule them and dump on the whole thing.
No, what we have here is a guy playing hero where there is no threat and in the act of showing his weapon to another person, accidentally discharged the weapon. When you are standing guard, you keep your safety on and you don't show your weapon to anyone who asks.
Well regulated militia. Yeah, OK.
That's why you keep the muzzle pointed at the ground.
well there you go. this wasn't improper handling of a weapon, this was proper handling of a weapon. not much else to discuss.
No, what we have is just an example of good people watching each other's back, giving
unhappy individuals a chance to ridicule them and dump on the whole thing.No, what we have here is a guy playing hero where there is no threat and in the act of showing his weapon to another person, accidentally discharged the weapon. When you are standing guard, you keep your safety on and you don't show your weapon to anyone who asks.
Well regulated militia. Yeah, OK.
Correct, he should have had the safety on.
Correct, he should have had the safety on.
i'm confused now. which was it, improper handling of a weapon or proper handling? as a non gun owner and never having taken a gun safety class all i can do is say what makes sense to me. obviously you are more experienced with guns than i am based on your posts thru time.
Correct, he should have had the safety on.
i'm confused now. which was it, improper handling of a weapon or proper handling? as a non gun owner and never having taken a gun safety class all i can do is say what makes sense to me. obviously you are more experienced with guns than i am based on your posts thru time.
That's a hard and fast rule. Check it often and, ALWAYS have the safety on until you're absolutely ready to fire.
so your comment to my other post seems kinda snarky, i admit mine might have been also but not as much as yours.
oh well.
so your comment to my other post seems kinda snarky, i admit mine might have been also but not as much as yours.
oh well.
Nah, keeping the muzzle pointed down is just another safety rule.
Missed a bit of this thread and am backtracking to the warnings being "disregarded" comment...
Alloak - you say the dead bodies are evidence of the threat being disregarded. When London was bombed by the Nazis people died. Are you saying Churchill had disregarded Hitler's threats?
I don't think you have any evidence that those ISIS warnings have been disregarded.
No, what we have is just an example of crazy misguided people playing hero where they're not wanted doing more harm than good, likely scaring off people from even entering the recruitment center.
I fixed that for you.
The citizens guarding the recruiting station thing sounds patriotic and all, unless one factors in that all who may want to do members of our military harm might not fit the typical appearance of an Islamic extremist. Having random people standing around with guns on the sidewalk has all kinds of connotations and possibilities.
No, what we have is just an example of crazy misguided people playing hero where they're not wanted doing more harm than good, likely scaring off people from even entering the recruitment center.
I fixed that for you.
Fixed it how? "Crazy" and "misguided" because they're not like you? If they were not wanted they would have been asked (forced) to leave. Haven't heard one account of someone reporting they were scared to enter.
Times have changed. There have been terror threats against the US Military as well as police officers. We have known that ISIS has been calling for jihad against military personnel inside the USA. The warnings were apparently disregarded.
Alloak - again I ask, when London was bombed was it because Churchill disregarded the threats of Hitler?
The FBI reported that there were terror plots thwarted. Your accusation is a lie.
That's a full on BS allegation you made. Your reasoning is illogical.
Times have changed. There have been terror threats against the US Military as well as police officers. We have known that ISIS has been calling for jihad against military personnel inside the USA. The warnings were apparently disregarded.
Alloak - again I ask, when London was bombed was it because Churchill disregarded the threats of Hitler?
The FBI reported that there were terror plots thwarted. Your accusation is a lie.
That's a full on BS allegation you made. Your reasoning is illogical.
Churchill didn't downplay the Germans the way this administration constantly downplays
Islamic extremism. He did the opposite, They refuse to even use the term. I think they'd
just as soon attack a payday lender.
Why not send out this memo:
"Due to recent threats and the heightened domestic threat level posed by jihadists, all
military personnel will be permitted to carry a firearm, until further notice." Apparently
nobody thought of that.
At least the guys in Chattanooga would have had a fighting chance. Aside from that,
prohibiting US Marines from carrying a weapon is about the dumbest thing I've ever
heard. I don't care who signed the law. Talk about illogical.
[Edited on 7/25/2015 by alloak41]
