The Achillies heal of all anti-terrorism efforts.

[DarkLion]

Every time they ratchet up the anti-terrorism efforts you lose a little bit more freedom. The question is how far are you willing to go to trade freedom for safety.

There seems to be no end with some people

 

[Skull Pilot]

Loosen gun laws and ask people to be vigilant.

Do you think gun laws are in some way to blame for the Boston bombing?

Of course not but it is just more evidence that the government, despite its heavy handed so called security measures, cannot protect you.

 

[Saigon]

Skull Pilot -

How effectively did people in the crowd who were armed protect themselves?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull Pilot -

How effectively did people in the crowd who were armed protect themselves?

Don't know don't care.

It's tough to protect yourself from a bomb isn't it?

But that is not a reason to deny people the right to protect themselves in other situations is it?

The government is incapable of protecting you. If you don't want to protect yourself that's fine with me but don't tell me I can't protect myself.

 

[Saigon]

It's tough to protect yourself from a bomb isn't it?

It is...I'd say impossible.

In general I think the US services do an excellent job in stopping attacks before they happen, but in this case the bombers obviously evaded detection.

I don't see carrying a gun makes much different in this kind of situation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's tough to protect yourself from a bomb isn't it?

It is...I'd say impossible.

In general I think the US services do an excellent job in stopping attacks before they happen, but in this case the bombers obviously evaded detection.

I don't see carrying a gun makes much different in this kind of situation.

I did not specify "in this situation" did I?

It's just one more example of the government's inability to protect people. If people are denied the right to protect themselves then we are at the mercy of those who would harm us.

 

[Saigon]

then we are at the mercy of those who would harm us.

Only if those people are armed.

In countries with safety-based gun laws, the threat is minor because any assailant is likely to be armed with no more than a knife.

Some 50,000 American were deliberately shot last year - a figure ten times that of any other western nation.

 

[mudwhistle]

Every time they ratchet up the anti-terrorism efforts you lose a little bit more freedom. The question is how far are you willing to go to trade freedom for safety.

Loosen gun laws and ask people to be vigilant.

That's one thing the red states have right. There's nothing wrong with having plenty of guns readily available to be aimed at people who would perpetrate terrorism.

A gun does not make you see a nearly invisible enemy and it doesn't protect you from shrapnel.

This simple fact should become apparent to anyone who has been paying attention. It seems that terrorists don't care who's side you are on politically. Everyone is a target. Being a liberal doesn't shield you from it. I don't think they took a survey before they set those bombs off to see who the victims voted for, what their stand is on same-sex marriage, what they feel about private gun ownership, or whom they support in the Middle East.

Regardless of the PC arguments against it, profiling is the single most important tool Israel has to fight terrorism. Discarding any effective means of prevention because we have to consider the politics of it has historically proved to be folly.

We began using tools after 9/11 that prevented these attacks and last year the FBI began a purge of any reference of Islamic-fundamental terrorists. They rewrote all of the anti-terrorist FMs concerning in an attempt not to insult the dignity of Muslims. This is just food for thought.

 

[martybegan]

then we are at the mercy of those who would harm us.

Only if those people are armed.

In countries with safety-based gun laws, the threat is minor because any assailant is likely to be armed with no more than a knife.

Some 50,000 American were deliberately shot last year - a figure ten times that of any other western nation.

So THATS why most European countries have machine gun armed guards at thier airports, and at thier major infrastructure points, and cultural treasures. i guess they are such poor shots that they need machine gun spray and pray fire against people armed only with knives.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Freedom and Security, a classic dichotomy, though it seems some want both. The more weapons of mass destruction proliferate our society the greater the odds that a single terrorist or a group will try to terrorize our population. They won't succeed.

There will be a Boston Marathon next year. People will not forget; few will be intimidated and allow evil to win, but most who ran this year will be back, and Bostonians will turn out in celebration of their freedom framed by a new reality.

It behooves all of us to be more vigilant, especially when attending crowded events, to be prepared with a plan, for such a horror can confront anyone of us unexpectedly.

 

[editec]

Loosen gun laws and ask people to be vigilant.

Do you think gun laws are in some way to blame for the Boston bombing?

That seems to be what he's suggesting, doesn't it?

Now how does one engage a mind like that in a rational discussion of guns and terrorism?

Seriously...this is where that pesky 30 point rule becomes a real problem.

 

[Skull Pilot]

then we are at the mercy of those who would harm us.

Only if those people are armed.

In countries with safety-based gun laws, the threat is minor because any assailant is likely to be armed with no more than a knife.

Some 50,000 American were deliberately shot last year - a figure ten times that of any other western nation.

Tell me what is the sense of having to protect yourself from a person, or several people by fighting them all hand to hand?

Sorry but I would prefer not to protect my wife from some knife wielding freak with my bare hands, would you?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The recent even, once all the facts have come out, may become a glaring example of the difficulty faced by authorities in thier battle to counter politically motivated groups that resort to violence to achive thier goals (aka terrorists).

The equation simply shows that all these bastards have to do is get lucky once, and they can cause massive damage to even a well protected event. The authorities have to be on the ball constantly to make "getting lucky" by the attackers as difficult as possible.

All of the measures taken in an anti-terrorist program are not designed to stop such attacks on thier own. Thier purpose is to make an attack require more steps to be successful, and give the authorities more chances to get lucky, or for the attackers to get unlucky.

Events, locations, and people can be made attack resistant, they can never be made attack-proof.

Under Obama's watch America has been hit by three terror attacks now. 1st one was Major Hassan the muslim who waged jihad on a military base inside usa shouting allah akbar while mass murdering over dozen people. ( obama called it work place violence ) 2nd one was on American soil at the US EMBASSY which was over run by Islamic terrorists who dragged our ambassador Stevens into the street and raped him before murdering him while White House refused to even call it a terror attack initially and preferred to blame it on a youtube video which later it turned out had nothing to do with it. Yesterday, once again we are told by Obama to wait, we don't know what happened, we need to find out "why" someone would do this. No we don't. It is the same reason they did 9/11. It is religious terrorism. There is nothing political about it. This is religious terrorism folks and Islam is the religion. Stop tip toeing around the 800 lb elephant in the room for Gods sake. The sky will not fall if you tell the truth as it is - instead of burying it under alot of politically correct nonsense.

- Jeremiah

 

[Wry Catcher]

The recent even, once all the facts have come out, may become a glaring example of the difficulty faced by authorities in thier battle to counter politically motivated groups that resort to violence to achive thier goals (aka terrorists).

The equation simply shows that all these bastards have to do is get lucky once, and they can cause massive damage to even a well protected event. The authorities have to be on the ball constantly to make "getting lucky" by the attackers as difficult as possible.

All of the measures taken in an anti-terrorist program are not designed to stop such attacks on thier own. Thier purpose is to make an attack require more steps to be successful, and give the authorities more chances to get lucky, or for the attackers to get unlucky.

Events, locations, and people can be made attack resistant, they can never be made attack-proof.

Under Obama's watch America has been hit by three terror attacks now. 1st one was Major Hassan the muslim who waged jihad on a military base inside usa shouting allah akbar while mass murdering over dozen people. ( obama called it work place violence ) 2nd one was on American soil at the US EMBASSY which was over run by Islamic terrorists who dragged our ambassador Stevens into the street and raped him before murdering him while White House refused to even call it a terror attack initially and preferred to blame it on a youtube video which later it turned out had nothing to do with it. Yesterday, once again we are told by Obama to wait, we don't know what happened, we need to find out "why" someone would do this. No we don't. It is the same reason they did 9/11. It is religious terrorism. There is nothing political about it. This is religious terrorism folks and Islam is the religion. Stop tip toeing around the 800 lb elephant in the room for Gods sake. The sky will not fall if you tell the truth as it is - instead of burying it under alot of politically correct nonsense.

- Jeremiah

When Tim McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma Federal Building people blamed ME Terrorists. In Arizona a Sikh was murdered by someone like Jeremiah, someone who jumped to justice.

Obama is spot on and doing what is required: Due Diligence. Fear mongers and bigots do only harm when they rush to judgment.

 

[Saigon]

Skull pilot -

If you are honest, I think you will admit that if you have to deal with an intruder or attacker, you would prefer the assailant was not armed. Correct?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull pilot -

If you are honest, I think you will admit that if you have to deal with an intruder or attacker, you would prefer the assailant was not armed. Correct?

Criminals don't obey the law get it?

And I don't care if he or they were armed (btw one can be armed with a knife) or not I don't want to and shouldn't have to fight them hand to hand. I want to drop them before they get within striking distance.

 

[martybegan]

Skull pilot -

If you are honest, I think you will admit that if you have to deal with an intruder or attacker, you would prefer the assailant was not armed. Correct?

Your question is like trying to use the Ideal Gas Law to figure out the propellant velocity or thrust of a modern rocket. Sure you are going get an answer, but the answer is pointless.

Short of un-inventing firearms/knives/clubs/socks with a billiard ball in them you will never be assured someone who is attacking you in unarmed. Why do progressives seek to disarm the people who would actually follow the law, while having no answer to effectively disarming those who do NOT follow the law.

 

[Flopper]

It's tough to protect yourself from a bomb isn't it?

It is...I'd say impossible.

In general I think the US services do an excellent job in stopping attacks before they happen, but in this case the bombers obviously evaded detection.

I don't see carrying a gun makes much different in this kind of situation.

True. Government failures are front page news. Government successes are soon forgotten and most are not even released to the media because of security consideration.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Who is most dangerous, a criminal with a gun or a paranoid who doesn't know he is paranoid?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Who is most dangerous, a criminal with a gun or a paranoid who doesn't know he is paranoid?

If the possibility of being the victim of a crime exists one is not paranoid to want the right to protect himself.