3 ms·

So then create shall-issue laws for concealed weapons nationwide and encourage ordinary, law abiding citizens to purchase and carry with them guns all the time.

So then create shall-issue laws for concealed weapons nationwide and encourage ordinary, law abiding citizens to purchase and carry with them guns all the time. Also ensure that there are no exclusion zones, or else those become the prime target areas. If it is well documented that 1 in 5 Americans has a gun at any time, terrorists might think twice about their odds of success. Further, if they do carry out an attack, they won't be able to hurt many people before the people strike back. If you want to put an immediate end to terrorist attacks the only way to do so is to ensure that there are people witnessing the unfolding events (so they know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys) and empower them to solve the problem right away. No matter how you slice it, you can't make 1 in 5 people permanent, paid police officers so you have to look at the citizenry. If you can't abide the idea of normal people carrying guns everywhere then you need to learn to live with the idea that the police can't be everywhere all the time, and that these are the risks you take regarding terrorism to feel safe from your fellow countrymen who you deem untrustworthy.

rjaco31 11y ago
I can't tell if your post is sarcastic or not. If you cannot prevent terrorist acts on your soil, the solution is pretty obvious then, it's not to give weapons to everybody or to hire 20% of your population as cop, it's just to be sure that you're not giving reasons to anybody to come and bomb you. That's the only realistic & cost-efficient approach given the threat model.
- msandford 11y ago
  That's a long term solution and one I am in favor of. But what do you do in the interim, between the time that the US stops creating more terrorists through bad foreign policy and the time that everyone who is angry enough to want to kill Americans for revenge is either dead or doesn't care anymore? Edit: I am not being sarcastic at all. It will be exceedingly difficult to get rid of all the guns in the US so suggesting disarmament is a non-starter here. That means that terrorists will be able to get their hands on guns if they desire. Which means that you need someone to counter them with something. The logical conclusion is another person (preferably many people) with guns also. And since the police ratio in the US is on the order of 0.1% that's not going to give you an adequate response time as we've seen from mass shootings. The real question is "would the cure be worse than the disease?" and while I personally think the answer is "no" that doesn't make me right. And given how much the left hates guns, I suspect that we'll never actually find out, so don't worry.
- jakeogh 11y ago
  "not giving reasons to anybody to come and bomb you" Power needs to be attacked, otherwise it's protection racket wouldn't work.
jakeogh 11y ago
Seems obvious that humans should at their option have the ability to defend life with effective tools. Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble has something to say about it: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341&singlePage=true http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-ch...

rjaco31 11y ago

I can't tell if your post is sarcastic or not. If you cannot prevent terrorist acts on your soil, the solution is pretty obvious then, it's not to give weapons to everybody or to hire 20% of your population as cop, it's just to be sure that you're not giving reasons to anybody to come and bomb you. That's the only realistic & cost-efficient approach given the threat model.

msandford 11y ago
That's a long term solution and one I am in favor of. But what do you do in the interim, between the time that the US stops creating more terrorists through bad foreign policy and the time that everyone who is angry enough to want to kill Americans for revenge is either dead or doesn't care anymore? Edit: I am not being sarcastic at all. It will be exceedingly difficult to get rid of all the guns in the US so suggesting disarmament is a non-starter here. That means that terrorists will be able to get their hands on guns if they desire. Which means that you need someone to counter them with something. The logical conclusion is another person (preferably many people) with guns also. And since the police ratio in the US is on the order of 0.1% that's not going to give you an adequate response time as we've seen from mass shootings. The real question is "would the cure be worse than the disease?" and while I personally think the answer is "no" that doesn't make me right. And given how much the left hates guns, I suspect that we'll never actually find out, so don't worry.
jakeogh 11y ago
"not giving reasons to anybody to come and bomb you" Power needs to be attacked, otherwise it's protection racket wouldn't work.

jakeogh 11y ago

Seems obvious that humans should at their option have the ability to defend life with effective tools. Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble has something to say about it: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341&singlePage=true http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-ch...