Israeli Homeland Defense: Could this work here?


PDA

TheLastBoyScout
March 24, 2003, 09:32 PM
Found this at http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm, talking about what happened after a palestinian terrorist attack on one of there schools.

Teachers and kindergarten nurses now started to carry guns, schools were protected by parents (and often grandpas) guarding them in voluntary shifts. No school group went on a hike or trip without armed guards. The Police involved the citizens in a voluntary civil guard project "Mishmar Esrachi", which even had its own sniper teams. The Army's Youth Group program, "Gadna", trained 15 - 16 year old kids in gun safety and guard procedures and the older high school boys got involved with the Mishmar Esrachi. During one noted incident, the "Herzliyah Bus massacre" (March '78, hijacking of a bus, 37 dead, 76 wounded), these youngsters were involved in the overall security measures in which the whole area between North Tel Aviv and the resort town of Herzlyiah was blocked off, manning roadblocks with the police, guarding schools kindergartens etc.

Should the US maybe think about taking some of these measures on a voluntary, trial basis?

If you enjoyed reading about "Israeli Homeland Defense: Could this work here?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Airwolf
March 24, 2003, 09:52 PM
Most people in the urban areas of this country would have a heart attack at the very thought of something like that.

I was reading a post on another site where a balloon popped in a movie theater lobby. People started screaming "GUN!", some dove for cover and others started crying.. The person posting the story (a CCW holder packing) didn’t raise an eyebrow because 1, he was armed and 2, knew the difference between a gunshot and a balloon popping (unlike many in the theater).

The creation of the nanny-state is nearly complete. People have been conditioned to believe that their safety depends always on someone else “in charge” coming to the rescue. The idea that a “civilian” could possibly be trusted with something so dangerous as a firearm is far beyond their comprehension.

The only way something like this would come to pass is under similar circumstances. Frequent violent attacks causing horrendous carnage may cause enough people to say “ENOUGH!” However, I’m afraid the more likely result would be a headlong rush of terrified soccer mommies and cowering bliss-ninnies begging .gov to take more of their freedoms away in the futile hope of gaining security.

Leatherneck
March 25, 2003, 11:24 AM
Most people in the urban areas of this country would have a heart attack at the very thought of something like that. Sad, but true Airwolf. How very sad for us.

TC
TFL Survivor

DMK
March 25, 2003, 05:18 PM
Just my opinion, but I think the reason that works in Israel is they have a mandatory military service obligation. ie. They are trained in how to use firearms.

In the U.S. we can't even get gunowners to remember to keep their fingers off the triggers of loaded firearms and a very large majority of our citizens have no firearms exposure or training whatsoever.

RoyRapoport
March 25, 2003, 06:26 PM
Not necessarily answering the question ...

I have pretty strong feelings that gun ownership is about the ability to defend one's own life and one's family from people who would do us harm (rather than sporting or hunting use). I'm pretty sure that my views on the topic are influenced by the fact that, as a child, my earliest exposure to guns was during field trips when my dad was one of the volunteer armed parents who would escort us kids. At night (we typically did at least one 3-4 day field trip in grades 6-8), he'd show me and my friends how to take the gun apart and put it back together again.

I suppose being a child in Israel is bound to give one a slightly different perspective on things :).

-roy

Peetmoss
March 25, 2003, 06:53 PM
Well I asked at work seeing how we were on a high state of alert if I could start carrying my Homeland defense rifle and a sidearm. I was informed Heck NO. Even though I stated it would be for the good of the children I would be protecting them from the terrorists. It was worth a try. BTW I work for a school district in Central NY.

chaim
March 25, 2003, 09:15 PM
Sure I could see that happening here in the US, after we undergo the violent, prolonged terrorist threat Israel has for decades. We haven't had the same kind of threat as there. People here would feel that having civilians packing around kids was more dangerous than leaving them defenseless. Once that changes, unfortunately through a major terrorist action I can see people coming around (it must be an action that is so obviously terrorist that they can't try to protray it as criminal in which case it will go the opposite way- more gun restrictions). Sadly, terrorists would be able to kill many of our kids before most Americans would come around though.

doseyclwn
March 26, 2003, 12:56 AM
Are you guys crazy?? You can't have guns around kids. What if one of them makes too much noise???? You might get all pissed off and shoot them.

LostOneToo
March 26, 2003, 03:42 AM
We have teachers/administrators who suspend a 1st/2nd grader for pointing his finger and going "Bang!!!" or for drawing a picture of a gun.
Do you really want idiots like that protecting your children????
The concept is good but unfortunately Americans are not Israelis and it would never work here.:what:

hansolo
March 26, 2003, 09:44 AM
I remember in the 80's when a former President defended the School Lunch Program by stating that "...catsup IS a vegetabe".

Armed security guards can't be hired 'cause the insurance is way too high for companies/schools to pay.

The first time a 6 year old grabs Homer's S&W 5906 and squeezes of a few rounds......SHTF.

Soccer Moms will say, "Let's pretend Mr. Badguy will never come to Daisey Kindergarten".

This ain't Tel Aviv!

chaim
March 26, 2003, 07:03 PM
Are you guys crazy?? You can't have guns around kids. What if one of them makes too much noise???? You might get all pissed off and shoot them. What is sad is that some people actually think that. I was talking to an acquantance about a year ago while I was looking for a job. He knew of an opening at a religious (Orthodox Jewish) special ed school and was going to put in a word for me. Then the conversation got to politics (he is generally far more "conservative" than me) and also on New York (where there are tons of Orthodox Jews). Knowing he is far more conservative than me I thought it "safe" to say that I didn't want to go there for political reasons, despite the fact that religiously it would be far better for me. When he pressed for specifics I mentioned the gun laws. He then looked almost in a panic and told me the only way he could "let" me work with kids is if I sold any guns I owned or put them under lock and key under the control of someone he knows. You see, he doesn't know me very well so "how can I be sure that you won't get mad at the kids and shoot them".:banghead:

Tommy Gunn
March 26, 2003, 11:26 PM
I hope you told that person in no uncertain terms how gravely he offended you.

chaim
March 27, 2003, 12:39 AM
He knew after that that I consider him to be a complete idiot. I also have to wonder about HIS voilent side if he actually believes that simply owning guns makes me more likely to attack/kill children (I know, he thinks that since I WANT to own guns I'm more dangerous, but still). I chose to be polite in my language since we were both religious people, plus there were other people around, but he understood then and there that I considered what he said to be idiotic, wrongheaded, and offensive and I think he understands exactly how offended I was based on the fact that I no longer even acknowlege him when we cross paths (and I certainly ignored his phone calls when he tried to call me- he always used to call to try to get me to do something or give money to a cause, after this, until he stopped calling, I didn't even give him the courtesy of a call back to decline).

Bahadur
March 27, 2003, 12:52 PM
chaim:
Sure I could see that happening here in the US, after we undergo the violent, prolonged terrorist threat Israel has for decades.That's what one would think rationally. But, in the absence of prolonged and sustained feeling of en brera as exists in Israel, the US public response would not be the same, I think. A terrorist threat is necessary, but not sufficient for the Israeli-like response. There also has to be a sense of being surrounded - no escape - and that there is "no choice."
(it must be an action that is so obviously terrorist that they can't try to protray it as criminal in which case it will go the opposite way- more gun restrictions).That's the thing. In the aftermath of terrorist attacks that involve firearms, I suspect that there will be MORE calls for restrictions, rather than less. Just look at the "sniper" case - that was really a case about acts of terrorism, not just murder. Yet the public sentiment - at least as portrayed by most media outlets - showed increasing concern about "assault weapons."

blades67
March 27, 2003, 05:50 PM
I was reading a post on another site where a balloon popped in a movie theater lobby. People started screaming "GUN!", some dove for cover and others started crying.. The person posting the story (a CCW holder packing) didn?t raise an eyebrow because 1, he was armed and 2, knew the difference between a gunshot and a balloon popping (unlike many in the theater).


You have to be careful when reading stories posted by FUD.:scrutiny: :neener:

If you enjoyed reading about "Israeli Homeland Defense: Could this work here?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!