Topic: Run Hide Tell : Public guidance in case of a firearms and weapons attack.

[bwaller]

I won't even read this from the beginning or I won't sleep. I try so hard not to get dragged into these discussions because no-one ever makes a perfect point, or sways opinion. It's left right, conservative liberal and too much hate.

But I opened this thread and read the last post...your post Lloyd, and especially about a few children harmed. God damn it, call me a ghoul then, because one harmed child is too many. #$%* man, that's wrong no matter what side of the fence you stand on.

Nobody ever called me a pussy and I'm a long way from angelic, but we need to turn this world around.

[ofreen]

"Gun free zones" is an idealistic and naive response which only provided a target rich environment,

Wait a sec, you mean calling a location a gun-free zone doesn't keep bad guys with guns at bay?

Kev asked if training and equipping some teachers was a good idea. Time and again the punks that perpetrate these atrocities have killed themselves as soon as they meet any resistance.  If it is a teacher that provides that resistance before the cops get there, excellent.

[ofreen]

God damn it, call me a ghoul then, because one harmed child is too many. #$%* man, that's wrong no matter what side of the fence you stand on.

You completely missed his point.

[bwaller]

Well I hope so, but I'm not going back to fill myself in. And you know what, maybe I'll just take a break from this place and social media in particular because I have a hate on for this fukin society we've created.

[TwoTired]

But I opened this thread and read the last post...your post Lloyd, and especially about a few children harmed. God damn it, call me a ghoul then, because one harmed child is too many. #$%* man, that's wrong no matter what side of the fence you stand on.

You did indeed misread.  The position forwarded is the sentiment of those in favor of legislating "gun free zones" primarily forwarded by the anti-gun lobby, because they believe guns have to be bad wherever they are found.  If that message requires the loss of life in a sensational school shooting.  What better to punctuate their desires?  Emotional decisions have little to do with scientific facts and reason.  Which, no offense meant, you seem to have demonstrated nicely, with your reaction to the messenger.

Anyway such people never consider how guns can be, and are, used for society's benefit, and far more often than they are used to it's detriment, at least in the USA where citizens are allowed to posses them.  But, the news media doesn't show that, do they?

[evinrude7]

Well of course if you believe the official report on 9/11, (the catalyst for everything that's happening now) 3 commercial airliners full of people allowed a handful of terrorists armed with tiny knives to somehow fly said aircraft into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, completely destroying the WTC and killing around 3000 innocent people.

Since then, we've been involved in two of the longest running wars in history, hundreds of thousands of people have died, trillions of dollars have been spent on the war effort, and the west has more enemies now than ever before. The world is not a better place for "The war on terror". 

I've often wondered, what if those passengers had been able to over power the terrorists and those planes safely landed, what the world would be like today? Cheers, Terry.

this ^^^

[scottly]

Because fear is a deep emotional response, the media will place it in prominence before the public eyes and thoughts, as it promotes advertising income.

How does fear promote advertising income? Who are these paying advertisers? Smith & Wesson? Colt? Ruger?

[TwoTired]

Because fear is a deep emotional response, the media will place it in prominence before the public eyes and thoughts, as it promotes advertising income.

How does fear promote advertising income? Who are these paying advertisers? Smith & Wesson? Colt? Ruger?

Fear mongering is the forte of the so called "news" shows.  Emotional topics garner interest and attract viewers, wanting to see the spectacle.   Advertisers pay for public exposure.  So, the more viewers, the more advertising dollars can be brought in.  Sensationalism sells.

I haven't seen any gun manufacturer paid advertising on Network "news shows".  Have you?

 Probably because the "news" topics are certain to place any gun related incident into a negative light, even righteous self defense use, either with bias or careful editing, usually to promote an outrage response.  "How horrible the elderly man shot someone breaking into his house to steal mere property."  Never mentioning the perp had a known record for assault and battery.  Omission or oversight in the haste to get the message out before facts came to light?
I implore you to take note of the actual advertisers preceding and after such a story.

Case in point. Back in the late 80's, there was a big media push to aid an "assault weapons ban".  The broadcast story expounded on the awesome destructive nature of AK-47s, showing a scene of an AK-47 being shot, and in the next cut scene a gallon water bottle exploding from impact quite spectacularly.  The police department head had invited journalists and cameramen to a demonstration their range.  The cameras recorded the AK being shot, and the jug getting hit.  But, the jug merely had two small leaks from the hole it punched through the water jug.  The journalists were disappointed.  So, the officer took out his side arm and shot a new water jug with his issued hollow points.  The jug exploded spectacularly, and that is what made the "news show" that evening, leaving the public uneducated about what actually caused what.

Anyway, the networks are primarily owned by anti gun promoting owners, and make enough money that they can and do refuse advertising or any program material from those in favor of the second amendment, gun manufacturers included.  They make a point of editing any sort of pro gun topics and carefully excerpt only portions of interviews that they can quickly show something horrific to associate with it, whether relevant to the issue or not.  They used to call this sort of thing yellow journalism.  Now days it is routine for the "show", and advertisers pay for it.

I don't know of any gun manufacturer that doesn't promote education and training about their guns, and certainly less fear inducement than any of the insurance companies foster to induce purchasing their "product".

[ofreen]

How does fear promote advertising income? Who are these paying advertisers? Smith & Wesson? Colt? Ruger?

Google "if it bleeds it leads."

[BobbyR]

My School District has solved the problem. We have a dedicated policeman on every school campus. It costs us money, but we value our children. They are also the DARE officers. They are equipped well and have AR-15s.  The regular patrol officers we have circulating around town have either a rifle or shotgun in the car.

We have about 1,000 members of the NYPD living in the community and several hundred from other departments. nonsense is not tolerated often.

[vfourfreak]

They are not abandoning the "Run, Hide, Tell" mantra : http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40553565

Seems to me the attackers would have escape routes covered, to have the fleeing persons run right into their sights. But I'm blowed if I know of a better alternative.

Kev

[Duke McDukiedook]

Suitcase nukes. Suitcase nukes are the answer to your problems.

[vfourfreak]

Suitcase nukes. Suitcase nukes are the answer to your problems.

Sounds like the answer to my ongoing woes with the ex. It's only the collateral damage that would cause me anguish. 

Kev

[BomberMann650]

Neutron bombs.  Destroys biomass, leaves infastructure immediately habitable.

[Terry in Australia]

What I don't get is why people are so anti-gun because it kills a couple thousand people per year (not meant to be an arguing point) but they endorse alcohol sales which kills hundreds of thousands of people each year? Didn't we learn back in the 20's that prohibition doesn't work? There is definitely a good side of private gun ownership but that rarely gets any mention in the public media. And you have to admit, when a mass shooter plans an attack they generally pick a gun free zone and carry out the attack with an unregistered or stolen weapon.

Hmmnnn, that's an interesting post mate. There are approx 33000 gun related deaths per year in the US, along with another 75000 non fatal injuries. Of the 33000 deaths, two thirds are suicides, and the other third is mostly murders. A "Mass shooting" (technically any shooting involving more than 2 victims) happens at least every second day of the week, and quite often, several times a day. These aren't terrorist related incidents, some are gang related, but the majority are committed by just one disgruntled person who legally purchased his guns and ammo, who's had a bad day. You're more likely to be murdered by a family member, neighbor or work colleague than you'll ever have of being killed by a terrorist.

Alcohol does kill a lot more Americans, not hundreds of thousands, but approx 88000 Americans every year. Now of course we know that alcohol accounts for some of the above gun related murders (guns account for 67% of all murders in the US) and some of the 33000 killed and 2,239,000 injured in car crashes annually, but generally speaking most people who die as a result of over consumption of alcohol do so as a result of their own poor choices, and don't take any others with them.

Personally, I like guns AND alcohol, and won't hear a bad word about either!  

[74cb750]

Yep - also heard they are stockpiling and hoarding all the King and Queen seats and Vetter fairings they can find !!   
 PS-Good post PeWe   

I have 3 King/Queen seats and am from the other country north of the one i live in me....oh, and I also have a couple of Vetter fairings.
Peace
michel

[BomberMann650]

...so that leaves 11000 that die from guns violence.

And the bulk of those are from a few major cities who have the most restrictive gun laws or these occur (as has been said) in Gun Free zones.

The practical upshot of abstinence only gun education.

[Duke McDukiedook]

Mandatory dispensing of street sweepers and bazookas to all citizens is the only answer.

[Duke McDukiedook]

Mandatory dispensing of hand grenades and black jacks to all school children is the only answer besides the other items dispensed above.

[TwoTired]

Mandatory dispensing of street sweepers and bazookas to all citizens is the only answer.

Ah yes overreaction is a valid retort.   

So, to extend that same vein, let's get to the root, shall we?
We should lobotomize the little human taxpayer minions at birth, rather than slowly through the public education system, "entertainment" media, monopolized news "shows", and of course alcohol and other drug abuse, in order to avoid any conflict or murderous behavior altogether.  Wouldn't you agree?  Or would you prefer eugenics to solve the problem, perhaps?

Let's nip this problem in the bud instead of silly "gun control" programs that only temporarily raise perceived "safety" until the next inventive murderer finds a way around a patchwork of ineffective laws to perpetuate historical human behavior patterns.

Seriously:
Humans will stop killing other humans only when Homo-Sapiens is extinct.  It only takes a few to spoil it for the rest.  We have laws because of aberrant behavior inherent in the species.   Our society is based on taking advantage of others.  That's capitalism.  And pretty much every other form of government in existence today.  We don't all have red hair and we don't all think the same way.  A certain percentage will always be devious and vindictive to lethal ends.   And, as the population increases, the number count of those deviants will also grow in number. "During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion."  Any small percentage of each of those numbers, results in a larger number for the latter.  And with instant media, we know about it wherever we are in the world.  So, we learn about far more incidents of a larger number base.

news flash:  World goes to hell!

Still reading?

[TwoTired]

There are approx 33000 gun related deaths per year in the US, along with another 75000 non fatal injuries. Of the 33000 deaths, two thirds are suicides, and the other third is mostly murders.

I believe this to be an incorrect assumption.  Does this not include justifiable homicides, and police action life termination (murders) as well?  That's the trouble with looking for statistics to support a forgone conclusion.  Or, as some say "common sense", which in reality has no predictable meaning, it's just a popularity vote of a population segment.

A "Mass shooting" (technically any shooting involving more than 2 victims) happens at least every second day of the week, and quite often, several times a day.

Do you have support for this assertion?  What agendized playbook have you been reading?

These aren't terrorist related incidents, some are gang related, but the majority are committed by just one disgruntled person who legally purchased his guns and ammo, who's had a bad day. You're more likely to be murdered by a family member, neighbor or work colleague than you'll ever have of being killed by a terrorist.

Isn't this another unsupported assertion?  You are certainly entitled to your opinion,  But, it seems rather disingenuous to present it as "common fact".  Although, in the broadest of terms, we are all neighbors on this planet.  So, I'm surprised you think I'm likely to murder you.  I'd really rather avoid that.  But, thank you for not declaring me a terrorist.

Alcohol does kill a lot more Americans, not hundreds of thousands, but approx 88000 Americans every year. Now of course we know that alcohol accounts for some of the above gun related murders (guns account for 67% of all murders in the US) and some of the 33000 killed and 2,239,000 injured in car crashes annually, but generally speaking most people who die as a result of over consumption of alcohol do so as a result of their own poor choices, and don't take any others with them.

Oy. Nice touch throwing in another flawed statistic  (67% - where did THAT come from?) for repetition as well as memory reinforcement about just how bad guns are within the presentation of a separate topic.  But, I haven't seen ANY handguns or AK-47s roving the streets causing havoc on their own.  Such broadcast events pretty much are always accompanied by a human operator.  Anyway, lives destroyed by alcohol (families included) far exceed the number of actual deaths from alcohol abuse.  (See how easy it is to present unsupported "facts"?)  Such a nice resonation to it, don't you think?

For all the evil that people using guns bring to the world (no denying that), there is far more benefit of a gun to more individuals than harm.  You don't have to fire a gun or kill someone to deter criminal acts.  And such deterrent events don't show up on convenient Government statistics.  Even if we accept a flawed statistic of 11000 murders involving a firearm (which I don't), it pales in comparison to 2.5 million times per year guns are used for self defense. (Kleck et al). Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year.   With the confiscation of guns from the citizens, criminals will still find access to deadly weapons (tools of the trade), criminals with guns would certainly prevail in almost every crime attempted.  Can you imagine the murder rate increasing or decreasing if the means for self defense were denied?

[Duke McDukiedook]

Overreaction?
Eh, I am just waiting for the next plague that only hopefully targets a majority of the mouthbreathers and hoopleheads in the world.
Until then I say no limits on gun control so hopefully it will rid the planet of more idiots and generally all-around stupid people.

The only problem with no limits to gun control is the idiots and stupids tend to harm the normals when performing their stupid gun tricks.

[TwoTired]

The only problem with no limits to gun control is the idiots and stupids tend to harm the normals when performing their stupid gun tricks.

Makes me wonder why you feel so superior to the general population?  Criminal studies show that inmate's average intelligence is only one standard deviation below the average for the general population.  It could be that successful criminals (smarter) don't get caught due to superior intelligence, or they get voted into office due to effective financial backing and become immune to prosecution.

But, that's not the only problem for civilian gun bans.  Guns can be an equalizer to aggressive behavior.  Without them, you essentially create a survival of the fittest situation.  If you are big and muscular, 60-80 year old frail grandma, for example, is easy prey.  60-80 year old grandma with a gun can stop gorilla man from further abuse, not only of her but other potential victims as well.  There ARE documented cases of this, if you care.  Such incidents just don't make headline news, even though society becomes safer from such incidents.

Even if you are fit and well able to defend yourself from one-on-one attacks, you aren't healthy 100% of the time or 100% alert for it all the time. 
And then there is the roving gangs scenario.  How many can you defend against in hand to hand combat?  When a natural disaster hits (hurricane, tornado, earthquake, etc.)  The roving gangs take advantage of the police being occupied elsewhere (protecting elected officials, and the like), leaving you on your own.  If you survive, they'll happily write a report about it latter when the situation eventually stabilizes.

Can accidents happen? Yes.
Can people do foolish and dangerous things with powerful tools?  Yes, and guns are certainly among them, as are chain saws, gasoline, motorcycles, trucks, autos, Broadcast media, the internet, and chemicals found in Hardware and grocery stores.  But, pretty much all of these things are considered a greater benefit to society than detriment.

I am somewhat taken aback with your desire for indiscriminate sickness and death upon people you don't even know.  But, I suppose it does fall in line with your desire to have them ineffective as survivors in any violent conflict.  I'm wondering why you expect to be a survivor?

Eh, I am just waiting for the next plague that only hopefully targets a majority of the mouthbreathers and hoopleheads in the world.
Until then I say no limits on gun control so hopefully it will rid the planet of more idiots and generally all-around stupid people.

[Terry in Australia]

Ha ha, classic Lloyd response, don't you think before I posted here, that I'd do some research first? Here you go mate, all the stats I listed are contained within these links, enjoy the read! Cheers, Terry.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262#.VLhsjS42d6I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

[ofreen]

The only problem with no limits to gun control is the idiots and stupids tend to harm the normals when performing their stupid gun tricks.

Eh, I am just waiting for the next plague that only hopefully targets a majority of the mouthbreathers and hoopleheads in the world.
Until then I say no limits on gun control so hopefully it will rid the planet of more idiots and generally all-around stupid people.

I'm wondering why you expect to be a survivor?

Excellent question.