Jump to content

Why attacks changed gun attitudes


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

I snipped this bit from CommentMax.

I'm happy as hell. I know Jaguar is. It feels good to see this in writing however.

quote:

CommentMax

Why Attacks Changed Gun Attitudes

Dr. Michael S. Brown

Oct. 18, 2001

The way that Americans feel about guns has undergone a sudden and unexpected change since the attacks of 9-11. Regulatory agencies, gun retailers and safety instructors all report a sharp increase in activity. Many purchasers are women, first-time buyers, and those who previously held anti-gun views.

Societal issues normally undergo gradual, pendulum-like swings, but this one is changing with astounding speed. It took roughly 40 years for the gun control movement to convince a large portion of the population that guns caused violence and were too dangerous for ordinary citizens to possess. It has taken less than one year for the tide to change.

The most obvious reasons for this rapid transformation are directly related to the terrorist attacks. For example, the almost unanimous call for military action makes it seem hypocritical to label guns as evil instruments when we are asking our military to wield them on our behalf.

The fact that the attacks were carried out without a single gun was a wake-up call to even the most ardent anti-gun activists. While they were concentrating on the dangers of guns, they ignored the reality that people with evil intent are the real threat.

Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore, in the process of finishing an anti-gun documentary, made this dramatic statement that probably expresses the feelings of many at his end of the political spectrum:

"This started out as a documentary on gun violence in America, but the largest mass murder in our history was just committed -- without the use of a single gun! Not a single bullet fired! ... I can't stop thinking about this. A thousand gun control laws would not have prevented this massacre. What am I doing?"

I believe this widespread attitude adjustment would have been impossible if not for the results of the last presidential election. Political analysts declared that support for tougher gun control laws lost the election for Al Gore. Although this is probably an exaggeration, Democratic politicians fled from the issue as if it were the kiss of death.

Liberal voters were free to rethink their position on guns without feeling disloyal to their party. They began to notice the failure of gun control laws and "gun free zones" in other countries, as well as in various states and cities. They started reading articles by Prof. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime." Doubts developed about the politically correct view of gun ownership. These doubts suddenly fit in with the new picture created on 9-11.

As soon as details of the box-cutter hijackings became public, millions of people shared a single thought: These attacks never would have succeeded if a single person with a handgun and a cool head had been in the right place at the right time.

The ease with which terrorists eluded our security measures made us all aware of how vulnerable we are. Terrorists have the luxury of striking at a time and place of their choosing, while we must defend all possible targets at all times. The next attack could easily disable large sections of the electric power grid, resulting in extended blackouts and a breakdown in social order.

Today's neophyte gun buyers are probably less concerned with fighting terrorists than with a scenario similar to the last round of riots in Los Angeles, during which police abandoned large areas of the city. In the resulting rush to local gun stores, many were dismayed at the long waiting period required before they could take delivery of a firearm that would allow them to protect their families.

The anti-gun lobby would like us to believe that new gun buyers are acting out of blind fear, but most are undergoing a sober and thoughtful re-evaluation that began prior to the attacks. Before 9-11, many people were still in denial about their own vulnerability to danger. It was easy to believe that we could always dial 911 and instantly summon armed officers to our rescue.

The lesson that many Americans have taken from this experience is that we should each take more responsibility for our own safety. Seeing so many innocent lives snuffed out without warning has injected a harsh dose of reality and relieved us of some of our idealistic innocence.

Dr. Michael S. Brown is a member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws,
He may be reached at [email protected].

References:

Michael Moore quote:


Thoughts?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got to agree with the whole thing, A friend of mine, who is a gun dealer tells me that his gun sales have gone through the roof, even the anti-gun mayor of a little town over here came in and bought a handgun.

This tells me far more then words can say.

People are actually beginning to understand that they and they ALONE are responsible for thier personal security.

What do I have to say? "ABOUT F&&*ING TIME!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It adds credence to the fact that the police only show up after a crime has been commited.

Jaguar, there's a book you ought to check out, called "Take my guns if you dare!" It's an old book but it goes through the history of self-defense and basically portrays the BATF as the Gestapo.

It's interesting and makes a lot of strong points, but it's an old book so I don't know if you'll be able to find a copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Testing Cable modem"

Guns are just like any other tool. Yes it can kill but only if the weilder wishes so. If we wanted to ban everything that can kill, it would just be a matter of time when they ban cars which kills more people than guns.

Given half the chance, I'd love to get myself a pistol here in England especially now. Unfortunately there is a gun ban here. Hell most cops don't even carry guns.

So who is responsible for the safety of me and my family? The cops? They just want to fill up their coffers with motorists offences fines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In South Africa the government recently wanted to tighten gun laws, making owning them a lot more more difficult. An Afrikaans political party leader (who owns twelve) had an interesting quip, "An afrikaners guns come second only to his wife"

gun culture? no never!

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: buckthesystem ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Columbine High

Just one statement to that, if guns had been outlawed, this still would have happened. The 2 that did this broke over 20 different laws, ANYONE that thinks that they would NOT have gotten hold of guns if guns had been illegal is NAIVE in the extreme.

NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING would have stopped these guys from doing what they did, except an armed teacher or teachers.

Had there been someone armed in the school, it would have been stopped and stopped quickly!!

But to think that this would have been stopped if guns had been illegal, is fooling yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Columbine High

You are forgetting that guns were illegal by federal law to have on schools. What if it wasn't illegal? How many teachers may have been armed and been able to stop the shooting rampage?

Columbine Reaction was typical liberal knee jerk reactionism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

typical liberal knee jerk reactionism


To reply, I will quote myself here:

quote:

Do not blame the actions of the few on the whole. Even if the few are in power.


Do not use Liberal as a curse word. It is pointless, and causes a division among fellow citizens. Just because we have a different viewpoint than you, does NOT mean we are your enemy. I say "we" but in fact, I do not count myself as a Liberal.

If you can't deal with different opinions without hatred, move to another country where different opinions aren't allowed. This is America, land of the FREE. Freedom means that we have the right to express our opinions on a matter. If Liberals happen to be in the majority, then well, surprise surprise, their ideals will likely become laws. Deal with it. Conservatives take away rights just the same as Liberals do. I usually don't like what Conservatives cook up, but I don't go spewing it all over boards.

Now is a time when we need UNITY. Using Liberal as a curse word spreads division. If that is what you want, then expect the country to fall apart at the seams. Because that is EXACTLY what will happen.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Gomez ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I believe it is our differences that make us what we are - Americans. I don't agree with liberals, and over-generalizing I may be, but you cannot deny that liberals are the main proponents of what Americans should be against.

You speak about freedom here and in your post you tell me that if I can't deal with other opinions I should move to another country - yet you are reacting to my post. Liberals have a right to free speech, but think they have the right to make others listen. And anyone who disagrees is using "hate-speech".

Liberalism originally wasn't a bad idea, but today Liberalism taken to the extreme is anti-American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It only takes a moment to look at the crime rates in countries that have adopted no civi firearms laws and see that crime rates have either not changed or have gone on the rise since the law was passed (this includes armed crimes). Just look at Australia and the UK. I'm sorry folks, but it's not a utopia out there. Only law abiding citizens abide by the law. However, thanks to LAW, John Q. Public is required to be a victim.

That's right. Without the right of bearing/ownin arms you are no longer a contributing citizen. You are, in fact, a victim in waiting. The strong prey on the weak. It's the way life works on this planet. No matter how many laws pass; no matter how many peace treaties are signed; no matter how nice it looks in your bubble; someone is going to be victimized.

Now, let's look at who bennifits from the popluce being canned victim.

1. Terrorists. Obvious. If your target can't defend itself, you go after it.

2. Criminals. Much like t's look for the same mrks. Everything looks for the path of least resistance. No criminal is going to attempt something against an armed target. Too much work and too many liberals that make easier targets.

3. Governments. It's far easier to convince a victim that a new law/bill should be put into effect. A person that is allowed to make decissions for his self or her self is not as likely to give up their rights.

So, how do individual law abiding citizens bennifit from gun laws? They don't. Every bleeding heart femi-Nazi liberal would love for you to think that stronger gun control would've prevented Columbine. Those that agree are sheep. They listen/watch/read the news and appreciate being spoon fed sound-bytes that make it easy to form an opinion.

However, I find it extremely hard to believe that a thinking reasoning human capable of forming his or her own opinion would see that a few words on a piece of paper backed by a reaction only enforcement policy would ever stop a criminal from abusing a law abiding citizen. Those that do are no better than the osterich hiding its head in the sand thinking: I can't see it, so the danger must not be there.

Yep, I said Liberal. As much as I agree that Liberals are just as entitled to their opinion, I also know at the core of me that liberals are spineless followers uncapable of seeing truths beyond the lies. Why make your own decisions when you can look all whitty and wise by spouting the same mindless drivel that Senator Idiot spews out of his mouth.

The liberal movement is not one of freedom and democracy. At every turn, Liberals are doing everything humanly possible to control the lives of everyday citizens. A case in point, outside of gun control, is the legislation being pushed through the house and senate that would make it law for manufacturers to include hardware control of your abillity to create mp3's from cd's. All computers and basically ANY device deemed to be capable of transporting/transmitting/transcoding digitial media (of any kind, not just mp3) will be required to have a security chip that will block the use of said materials.

So, you like your life. You like being able to place your 250 cd library as high quality mp3's on your new hard drive based automobile mp3 player. You abide by laws. You don't pirate software. You don't give away your mp3's on p to p nets. Heh, soon you will not be able to do anything but play those cd's. And guess what: It won't make a bit of difference to those that do pirate materials for profit.

We humans are an amazing species. We adapt. We find ways to get around problems. Liberals, on the other hand would love to be able to control your inginuity.

Big Brother did not fade away with the passing of the '80s. He's here. He's stronger than you can imagine. He's already watching, listening, and recording everything you do.

So, you don't like what happened at Columbine. Fine. I don't either. However, I don't blame the gun. I blame the children that pulled the triggers. I blame the pawn shop that sold the weapons to an obvious minor. Most of all, though, I blame liberals who have created an America full of people unable/unwilling to take responsibillity for their lives; their actions; and their homes.

I for one, would be far happier if Everyone had a side arm attached to their belt and in the open for all to see. Then, you'd see crime drop as all but the insane would realize that crime=death.

Do I think Lib's shouldn't have a forum for their opinions? No, but it should be limited to the state of Oregon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everyone is so paranoid about having concealed weapons on aircraft, I have a solution. I would be willing to PAY to take additional courses, and have to PROVE my ability on the range, and to know what ammo and weapon to carry on board an aircraft.

All this training that I would pay for myself, would grant me a card, approving me to carry on board. A permit that I must go back to the range scool and renew by demonstration of skill in shooting and knowledge every 4 years. To be allowed to carry on board, I must hand this permit to the ticket counter along with my ID (just like everyone has to show ID) at the ticket counter. This gives them plenty of time to object, or verify my credentials before boarding.

Sound reasonable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

No, but it should be limited to the state of Oregon.


Hey!! Be NICE, at least say California!! At least I can carry a weapon without a bunch of crap, California is the liberal mecca of this country, and Berkeley is the Socviet Union of this country. Oregon Yes, is somewhat liberal, but it ain't that bad YET!!

Then again, it is getting worse, one of the many reasons I am moving by the end of this year, But before you start beating on Oregon, compare it to California first, it ain't that bad!!!

And again I say.... YET!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Remo Williams

quote:

At least I can carry a weapon without a bunch of crap, California is the liberal mecca of this country, and Berkeley is the Socviet Union of this country.

(Ahem!) Please, give me a break, Calif. is not a mecca of liberals. I carry my weapon everywhere I go and have had no problems in doing so. There may be pockets of liberals across the state but by far Californians are conservative. It just seems that way since were one of the most populace states.

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I guess you have no problem carrying it, but it's registered out the @$$ I bet, and if you EVER use it in self defense and kill someone (note: to use a gun in self defense you don't necessarily have to kill, it doesn't kill anyone in over 97% of cases of self defense FYI) your gun would be taken away indefinitely, and unless a judge decides to give it back, you have to get a new gun. Not that easy there I understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you have a concealed weapons permit, How did you get it? No one but a public official or someone with a dire need and can PROVE it may have a CWP in California, so I wouldn't use that weapon if I were you, because you would end up in the jail cell along with your attacker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Remo Williams

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

And if you have a concealed weapons permit, How did you get it? No one but a public official or someone with a dire need and can PROVE it may have a CWP in California, so I wouldn't use that weapon if I were you, because you would end up in the jail cell along with your attacker.

All you need to get a CWP in california is prove that you move large amounts of cash around in public during the course of your business day. Its that simple, so if I use it yes I'll be down at our local PD until they get all the details. Then you take your gun and go home. I've seen this happen several times in our community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that you have absolutely no intention of listening to me. Therefore, I will not bother. You go ahead and watch the country fall apart because you could care less that you are dividing us. Yes, YOU. Liberals ARE NOT THE ENEMY. They are American citizens just like you. They hate terrorists as much as you do. They hate to be attacked by criminals just as much as you do. They just have a different way of dealing with the situation. One that you don't like. So you HATE them. Go right ahead. Hate as much as you want. It makes you no better than the terrorists that attacked us. Hate is what led the terrorists to do what they did to us. And over what? US policy. Well, here you are hating a group of Americans for their POLICY. Nice path you lead.

I don't hate gun enthusiasts. I hate what guns do to people. I hate that I am actually involved in this conversation now. I hate hate.

Hate also happens to be what led those students to shoot up Columbine High. Hate of the other students. And you know what? It was probably caused by those other students HATING them. Hate leads to hate.

So if you really want to hate fellow Americans because of their policy, you go right ahead. But I think you'll find that your path leads to OUR destruction. Our division is the end of what we stand for. And HATE is the MOST un-American thing you can possibly do. You call those Liberals you hate so much anti-American. Yet you do something far worse. What's that I keep hearing on the radio and TV? UNITED WE STAND. The other half of that is divided we FALL. Hate divides us.

I am out of this conversation. I've had enough of your hate mongering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I am out of this conversation. I've had enough of your hate mongering.


Gomez, I don't hate anyone, unless they are trying to take away my constitutional rights.

liberals are trying to take away my 2nd amendment rights, What? Am I supposed to love them for it?

You don't like guns and don't want to have or use one, hey that's fine, but when you try and FORCE me into those beliefs, don't expect hugs and kisses, expect me to A: ignore you, or B: fight you with everything I have available. but to say that I should love and be united over the gun issue because of the terrorist atrocity, well sorry, they are taking advantage of the situation to come after my rights as guaranteed under the constitution, and therefore it is my right, and my responsibility to fight them, for me and future generations to come!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever liberals cannot defeat an argument based on logic and facts, they resort to calling the undefeatable argument "hate-speech"

Once they have reduced a person to someone that hates them, they are free to ignore any points that person has made because it's "hate-speech".

And you wonder why your ideas are out of whack? You cannot defeat an argument and you resort to telling me I'm a hate monger? I have done nothing but give intelligent and thoughtful examples on why gun ownership should be legal and why those who try to make it illegal (liberals in the majority) are wrong.

They give emotional arguments based on feelings and not fact. I would rather liberals just do as you do and leave the conversation out of disgust for facts instead of using illogical arguments and worrying about how people "feel" to make their arguments and policy. It isn't that hard to maintain a civil conversation. It's not me doing the name calling here. I have named a specific self-identified group who feel a self-identified way, and shown why they are wrong. The truth hurts so you whine "hate-speech!"

Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I don't hate gun enthusiasts. I hate what guns do to people. I hate that I am actually involved in this conversation now. I hate hate.

BTW you are doing an awful lot of "hating" yourself. None of us has said we hate liberals even once. What a baseless argument.

BTW guns don't do anything to people. People hurt other people, whether it's with a knife, a gun, a boxcutter, or a plane. September 11 proved that in the biggest death toll in modern American history not a single gun was used to kill 6,000 people. Liberals can't stand it - in fact lots of former anti-gunners are flocking to gun shops right as we speak. If someone on that plane had had a gun - the terrorists would not have succeeded. The anti gun movement is falling apart - it took 40 years give or take to convince most of the American people that guns aren't needed, and the 2nd amendment doesn't bestow gun ownership, and only 1 day to reverse that trend.

Sorry that I'm giddy as hell and sorry that I'm ROTFLMAO at the anti-gun lobby now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the liberal argument right now is that they know they have been proven wrong once and for all, but they haven't been able to bring themselves to admit it yet.

They've had eight years to make policy changes, and they haven't worked. But rather than admit that it didn't work, they continue to say one more program, one more dollar...

Columbine wasn't a result of hate (at least hate as we've come to know it). It was the result of some misguided kids who were ostracized by their peers and didn't have the emotional upbringing to handle adversity and loss.

The WTC attack was not the result of USA policies. It was the result of fundamentalist hatred of anyone who opposes the extreme Islamic beliefs of this group of people. Consider what they are doing to their own people, especially the women? Is the Taliban treatment of their own people a result of USA policy? Is the Saudi protection payoff of the Taliban a result of USA policy? When the USA went into Somalia to help starving Muslims, when they went into Kosovo to protect the Muslims, when they went to Kuwait it was to protect Muslims. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire from a wealth family. Why isn't he trying to improve the living standards of his own people instead of keeping the women uneducated and the men in rubble?

The Democrats gave up on the gun issue last year when they finally realized that their main base, the unions, are also NRA members and weren't buying into gun control. Also, guns didn't bring down the WTC -- those planes were taken over with knives. Therefore, the conclusion is that guns don't kill people, people do -- and evil people will do evil things whether they have guns or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...