Dear Mr. Security Agent

if you get nothing else out of this this is important...

''Consider this: the average number of victims per incident when the shooter is stopped by an armed civilian: three. The average number of victims when the shooter is stopped by a policeman: fourteen. Why? Because when every second is a matter of life and death, the police are still minutes away. Think about those numbers. Eleven people die needlessly if the shooting takes place in a “victim disarmament zone,” where legal firearms are prohibited. This is why deranged shooters head for schools, malls, and theaters, where signs forthrightly proclaim that guns are forbidden. A “no firearms” sign draws such a person the way that a starving wolf is attracted to a pen full of helpless lambs.

But when the killer is stopped by an armed civilian, the mainstream media rarely or never mention that fact, because it goes against their propaganda template: the inherent evil of guns in civilian hands. So those stories are spiked and the typical American never hears of them. Did you know that shortly before the tragedy in Connecticut, an armed civilian stopped a maniac in a packed shopping mall after he had killed only two victims, instead of twenty-seven?''

That was a really good piece.
I hope enough people read it and understand it.

Dave

My BS meter just pegged the needle full in the red!


In the thread "If they come for your guns do you have a responsibility to fight"
I pointed out that retaining the option of armed resistance is the deterrent that will keep law enforcement from actually enforcing any legislation that tramples the 2nd amendment.

In post #38 I said "Keeping ourselves well armed and trained is the key to avoiding firefights; when the agencies being asked to enforce a law refuse because they don't want to die we can keep things on a ballot box level and deal with politicians at the next election cycle."

Moderator Justin comes in and says this "Here's a suggestion.

Instead of screwing off posting in a thread on a public forum, viewable to anyone who comes along, about how we need to throw the next revolution, perhaps we could all head that particular future off at the pass by engaging in a bit of political activism by calling/writing/emailing/faxing our elected representatives to voice our disapproval about the institution of any further gun control.

I've long held the belief that a man who isn't willing to pick up a phone and make a call to his senator sure as Hell isn't going to be the kind of man who'd ever pick up a rifle if called upon."
Justin then locked the thread.

However, in the above article, the author (also a member here) says this "And so, if you find yourself silently dismounting a covert SWAT vehicle at zero-dark-thirty, dressed all in body armor, counting down to the time-coordinated explosion of battering rams and flash-bang grenades, on a raid against a sleeping household intended to result in the confiscation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition magazines that were legal to own in 2012, millions of Americans who also swore an oath to defend the Constitution will consider you their domestic enemy, and they will resist you with force of arms."

Larry Ashcroft agrees this is a "good read".


Perhaps the moderators of this site can sit down and figure out just what, exactly, our left and right limits are when it comes to discussing the topic of actually picking up a rifle and using "force of arms".



Thanks, in advance, for any guidance you guys can agree upon.

Wow. Thanks for sharing that, I am passing it on in many ways. I've just started Bracken's second book in the trilogy after the first one blew my mind with how relevant it was in current times.

BHP FAN said:

if you get nothing else out of this this is important...

''Consider this: the average number of victims per incident when the shooter is stopped by an armed civilian: three. The average number of victims when the shooter is stopped by a policeman: fourteen.

(edited for brevity)

But when the killer is stopped by an armed civilian, the mainstream media rarely or never mention that fact, because it goes against their propaganda template: the inherent evil of guns in civilian hands. So those stories are spiked and the typical American never hears of them. Did you know that shortly before the tragedy in Connecticut, an armed civilian stopped a maniac in a packed shopping mall after he had killed only two victims, instead of twenty-seven?''

Click to expand...

Help us out, please. Your very powerful argument is crippled by the lack of citations.

Everyone here knows Connecticut, Wisconsin and Colorado. If we want to cite the benefits of the armed civilian case (and the statistics for the averages you cited) you could help us use those statistics if you told us where we could find source documentation.

Leaving us without the sources is like leaving us with guns and no ammo in the fight against mindless gun control.

Lost Sheep

I had a witty response, but I'll keep it to myself.

Instead of asking for citation and footnote, how about thiking back in your mind of the shootings that ocurred and were discussed on this very board, stopped by CCW, off duty police present, etc. The body count has always been lower than waiting for the fuzz to show.

Your very powerful question is crippled by lack of being willing to research for yourself.

Couldn't keep it after all.

Wrong. The plural of anecdote is not data. Anyone bringing any sort of factual assertion to any debate of any kind is intellectually obligated to also bring supporting data. The bottom line is that in a debate, nothing is true that you cannot show to be true. If you are going to bring up a statistic, provide citations. It's as simple as that. They even teach it to high school debate students. It's fundamental in mathematical proofs. It's the backbone of scientific research and experimentation. Truth is demonstrable and verifiable.

I don't care if we're on the same side or not. I don't care if I agree with what you said or believe your claims or not. You did not demonstrate the truth of your claims, so they must not be considered until you do. And yes, the obligation to do so is on you, as the one who brought it up.

A very dark future indeed. I am of the opinion that the political options to reverse this future have long passed us by. I continue to write my congressmen but to no avail I am afraid. I get auto-signed form letters in return thanking me for my letter with a long list of achievements my senator or representative has done for our state but without regard for my subject matter.

If you wish to continue pushing the political options, here is an excellent resource for the "Facts"

www.gunfacts.info


Frankly, its "Zero-Dark-Thirty" plus one. It's time for those who are asked to enforce tyranny to look themselves in the mirror and ask if they are capable.

The real question to ask yourself is: At what point do we think they are?

Did you guys see this one,
On Sunday, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant! Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting? There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'd like to know.
From my friend who was a Marine sniper and instructor.

I believe that Matt is referring to this study done by Davi Barker. While it was not done at Harvard (as if that would give it more credibility!) the methodology and data sources are clearly given.

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

We will not see anything like this from those who preach disarming the population. It is a matter of faith to them that only armed agents of the state can be effective.

Notice that the author looks at all mass shootings stopped by citizens, using MSM sources, whether they are armed or not.

Clearly, there are many problems with using the MSM as the data base. One of the biggest is that when citizens stop mass shootings, they usually do not become mass shootings because the body count is much lower, and they are often not widely reported.

Here is a list of Mass Killings stopped by Armed Citizens. Most are pretty clear. Some are less certain than others:

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

Very good read, thanks for sharing...

Not trying to be rude, but just an fyi; bumping threads is frowned upon on THR. Just so you know.

Read Matt Bracken on WRSA link yesterday from The Liberty Sphere.
Hope at least a few of you folks "get it".
I really do....

Is this the same Bracken who wrote the "Enemies Foreign & Domestic" patriot fiction trilogy? If so I would question the wisdom of regarding any of his works as worthwhile.

Definitely a good read.

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone.

Click to expand...

The deputy wasn't exactly "off duty." She was on duty as a security guard for the theater. It wasn't like she was just a random patron attending a show in her spare time. She was there at the theater for the purpose of providing security and did exactly as she should have done in stopping the guy apparently at the first opportunity she had.