"Attempted attack in Australia" Topic

Bad guys trying to set off IEDs on Christmas day in Melbourne. link

A couple of weeks ago, during a conversation about arming police I made the comment that I prefer to be armed at work as the world is a dangerous place. A reply from one of our members Down Under was to the effect that my world may be dangerous, but his isn't. I have to wonder if he still feels that way today.

One of the downsides of being a police officer is that you see far more of where you work than even the most involved citizen and you get jaded very fast. There are rare times, like this, when the public gets an idea of what is happening around them.

I am not a police officer, but I am armed everywhere else but at work (I work at the airport). Most often the people who get hurt are the ones who think nothing can or will happen to them.

I had a fellow Army officer ask me once what I would need to be armed for. So I said, there are evil people in the world who desire to kill, maim, and destroy anyone that is good. I intend to get home safely every day and provide a safe environment for others around me. I am a sheep dog not a sheep or a wolf.

Australian Police are almost always armed when on duty and have been so since the 1920's in most states. This was as a result of a number of fatal attacks on Police where the officer was not armed, and has remained the standard ever since. There are far more desperate or deranged criminals out there than would-be terrorists.

A friend of mine is a UK traffic policeman. He sees people killed by lorries, cars and motorbikes on a regular basis. Nothing to do with terrorists, more to do with idiots driving too fast, tired or drunk. Normal people kill far more than any terrorist group. In this season of parties and festivities please drive safely guys and keep gaming.

We're not a fearful people in Australia, such that we don't feel the need to arm ourselves.

Good thing it is not a religious war, or so I've been told.

Glad they caught the perps.

They should never see the light of day again.

in my country..where carrying weapons is very limited or in practice totally banned …innocent lifes probably would have been saved if the victims and their familily menbers were armed…
today an heroic policeman liquidated without any hesitation the animal responsible for the Berlin massacre.. i'm sure that, thanks to many people that has the corrupted way of thinking not so dissimilar from some few also here…he risk to be incriminated instead of being awarded with a metal

One badguy down and one good guy wounded in Italy. My hat is off to the Italian officer who stopped that animal, and my prayers to the wounded officer for a swift recovery.

many of those pigs that were responsible or collaborated with other pigs involved in terrorists attack all over Europe..in one way or the other passed trough or had connection in Italy..somethinh harsh should be done to stamping the virus

@McWong: but you do have insurance on your car, right?

Same concept.

Being armed is NOT a matter of fear, it's a matter of having a plan/response for a disaster.

Australian farmers have rifles to protect their livestock and other property from foxes, dingoes, and feral animals. I have a pistol to protect my self and property from feral animals.

Every day I pray that I will not have to use it, and so far my prayers have been answered. *knocks on wood*

I read " animals", "pigs", "feral animals", and "liquidated" here and cannot help but sense the vicious demonisation and dehumanisation of a different flavour of extremism from that which motivated the Berlin attacker to commit his atrocity. Such polarity serves no one's interests but the hate-mongers of the world. Catch and punish the guilty, yes. If they violently resist use reasonable force to stop them. Do not however dehumanise entire groups of people by association. Do not play into the hands of ISIL or their ilk and self-radicalise yourselves to intolerance and exclusion.

It should not be a crime to be a Muslim or even a peaceful Islamist in Europe, America or Australia, but this kind of hateful polarity is making that possibility more likely. That feeds into the delusional and toxic narrative which drives the perpetrators of these atrocities of hate. What is needed is the courage and conviction to retain our own humanity and good judgement in the face of inhumane acts done by violent humans.

Cheers and Season's Greetings to all.
Rod Robertson.

Rod, who said anything about all Muslims being bad? We're talking about the disgusting subhuman piece of filth that committed this crime. A person of the Muslim faith who chose to attack people preparing to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

When you lose the ability to see evil for what it is and call it what it is you are in trouble as a society. Any Muslim that rejects extremism and terrorism is my friend. Any that celebrates it, encourages it, backs it, or commits it is my enemy, period.

One of the things I've noticed about the Left, (and I'm not accusing you of this Rod), is that they are, as a group, only able to recognize evil in retrospect. When Stalin was forcing the peasants off their land, stealing their food and forcing them into cannabilisim, the New York Times was writing laudatory stories about him. The CPUSA supported Hitler and opposed intervension in WWII until he invaded the Soviet Union. When millions were being killed in China by the communist government the NYT was writing stories about how Mao was modernizing the country and how great it was. Hanoi Jane was doing photo ops on NVA AA guns that were killing American service men, yet she said nothing when the NVA captured Hue, rounded up thousands of middle class people they considered possible enemies of the state and executed them. Castro executed tens of thousands and fomented rebellion all over the world. Now it's the same with Muslim extremists. Every time there's an attack I have to listen to endless apologies for the members of that faith who preach Jihad and how it is a religion of peace.

It was only after the fall of the Soviet union that modern movies started showing them as bad guys. Hitler only became evil after he invaded the Soviet Union. Communist China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Radical Islam won't get an honest treatment for years to come.

I am confused about one thing, only. Why were those NVA guns killing American servicemen?

Of course, the Right understands evil and sees it clearly. Just look at the history of racial segregation, for example. And when Hitler came to power, conservative traditionalists the world over took a stand against him and offerred asylum for the Jews he persecuted. Certainly, no right wing political groups or parties ever suggested alliance or cooperation with him.

And let's not forget the key role the Right played in condemning bloody, tortorous dictatorships throughout the world. Particularly in Latin America. I mean, right away they were against Castro, but they also were four square opposed to Castro, not to mention the sterling fight they waged against Castro (there being, of course, no other dictatorships in Latin America, especially ones that imprisoned and tortured people).

And we should always remember the huge struggle the right engaged in to support gays and lesbians. Now that was where you could really see their sensitivity to evil shining through.

Oh yeah! And women and the vote! How could I ever forget that! The Right championed that one from the get-go.

It's just so obvious when you look at it: leftists have done everything they could to hamper human rights and progress, only seeing things for their true evil nature when it was far too late. Meanwhile, the brave right has been at the forefront of every human struggle for justice and dignity that has ever occurred, rstraight on from the beginning.

And gosh, that evil Hollywood, portraying the Soviet Union in such a postive light from 1917 to 1989. Growing up, I can only recall seeing films talking about the workers' paradise. You never saw the USSR portrayed as evil or as the enemies of the democratic west on the silver screen. Thank god Reagan and Thatcher woke us up to the fact that communism was bad because that certainly wasn't anything you'd see in a Hollywood production.

But you know what I really admire about the right? They never engage in censorship, unlike those politically correct leftists. And they never, but never, try their hand at historical revisionism in order to make themsleves look like blameless paladins of humanity.

Too much politics here, let's take it for what it was. Utter delusional scum prevented from killing innocent people. Well done the Aussie police.

Yes, well done the Oz police.

Not sure what the rest of this is about.

The Aussies seem to have managed to arrest everyone concerned without shooting them (good job as they have released several of them since).

As for the odd rant about 'the left' I have no idea how that factors into this discussion at all. Very strange.

Dn Jackson asked:

:

Rod, who said anything about all Muslims being bad? We're talking about the disgusting subhuman piece of filth that committed this crime. A person of the Muslim faith who chose to attack people preparing to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

When you lose the ability to see evil for what it is and call it what it is you are in trouble as a society.

My answer: Italwars wrote among other things:

many of those pigs that were responsible or collaborated with other pigs involved in terrorists attack all over Europe..in one way or the other passed trough or had connection in Italy..somethinh harsh should be done to stamping the virus

Just doing some forward-looking evil detecting as the hindsight thing has given me a crick in the neck. When the pain subsides I'll refocus my leftist spectacles on the past exclusively, I promise!

Cheers and Season's Greetings to one and all.

Rod Robertson.

Nobody was celebrating the birth of Jesus just buying stuff and getting pissed.
Doesn't mean they need running over with a truck but hardly a religious gathering unless it was the worship of money which is where we are really.
Mind you I believe in money as I've actually seen some rather than fairy stories so happy Christmas and praise the Lord.

My libertarian friends are still making excuses about how Pinochet was a great guy and Suharto was a peace-loving democratic reformer.

It's hardly limited to "the left".

Heck, we have people on this very forum who maintain that slavery wasn't a big deal and we're going on 200 years for that one.

"Snip"

Oh, the irony! :D

It's okay Weasel, mi amigo: Speaking as someone whose people were the shackled property of the Roman Empire for three centuries plus, I can confirm that not only are we totally over it, but it's actually a comedic goldmine.

No offense Chris, but your answer confirms my point. You equate civil rights and voting rights with evil. You can't tell the difference. I've never said the right was clean. We worked with horrible dictators all through the Cold War, but it was necessary in order to win that war. We worked with one of the worst countries in the world in order to win WWII. The Soviet union. Sometimes you have to deal with bad people to protect your own. That's different than defending those who just killed others in the name of their religion because you don't want to offend them.

That…. Is rather surprising.

I would be interested in hearing your definition of "evil", then, DJ, because it sounds an awful lot like "my volk, right or wrong" (and with an extremely limited understanding of "one's own", to boot).

Dn,
Don't fret ,like a great number of posters here, C.V is unable to see nuances in any stance -the ones they believe in are absolutely correct and wonderful and and everyone that opposes them is wrong and a cretin and they mostly fall back to comparing them to fascists

of course please do not take it to mean that I agree with you either – Those are some dangerous slopes your ideas of acceptable behavior for a country are skiing on .

No, no! I am really interested in these nuances and hoping Mr. Jackson can explain them.

I am dying to hear how and why our torturers are less evil than their torturers. I mean, I get the pragmatic aspect of it all, but Mr. Jackson isn't talking pragmatics, is he?

He is talking moral absolutes: good versus evil.

And it seems that his only dividing line, at least as far as he has explained it so far, is this notion of "people". Which is rather odd because he seems to think that depriving some Americans (which one would assume are his "people") of citizenship rights is a relatively minor faux pas. No big deal in the great scheme of things.Certainly not evil.

So if either of you supremely intelligent gentlemen would deign to explain the nuances in Mr. Jackson's position, I am all ears.

Just let me make a big bowl of popcorn first.

Perhaps all parties on all sides of this discussion need to bring the rhetoric down and deal with the issues more dispassionately. If people are explicitly stepping out of line, point it out through citation and correct them but attacking others for their general position on law and order, terrorism, state terrorism and political expediency really does not advance the conversation much. Why is it so difficult to have an open and frank discussion without descending into the rancour of ad hominem attacks and innuendo? If you want to bring up 9/11/1973 great. But don't attack others for not bringing it up. Just make your case and let others decide the merits in their own way.

Cheers and Season's Greetings.
Rod Robertson.

..you equate civil rights and voting rights with evil.

Some of the right-wing dictators that you seem so quick to give a pass to certainly equated such things (and a free press) as evil.

I've never said the right was clean. We worked with horrible dictators all through the Cold War, but it was necessary in order to win that war.

Maybe from your very narrow POV. But someone living under some of your dictators would not share your enthusiasm. And not everyone agrees with your very skewed view of what was necessary.

I'm always amused at how quick we were to sacrifice the rights and privileges of those living in other nations in order to preserve our own.

Aparently, there is no easy way to explain these "nuances" grtbrt is talking about. I hope that he and Mr. Jackson are still thinking about my questions. I would hate to think that the moral positions regarding good and evil of two such obviously intelligent gentlemen could be boiled down to "might makes right" and "my people [with strategic subtractions], right or wrong", but that seems to be where they've left things.

Colonel Scott, the number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that same period was 11,766.

So with all due respect to your wish to protect the innocent, it's not the wolves I'm so much worried about, but the rabid dogs. Especially the ones who think they are sheep dogs and need to protect me (usually from myself).

I am not casting any insults at you, mind. I am sure you are a lovely older gentleman. But I carry mace and a collapsing spring baton. Odds are if I ever have to use them it won't be against some terrorist or anonymous thug, but against some guy I know, very probably a partner, an ex-partner, or a co-worker.

That's a simple fact that every intelligent woman knows and it is the reason most of us are less than thrilled to hear men talk about how they buy guns to protect us.

So, again, not wanting to insult you, but the fact that you are walking around out there, constantly armed, doesn't make me feel the least bit safer. To the contrary: it makes me want to check and see if my mace can is properly charged. Because again, while I am sure you are a lovely man, how the hell am I supposed to know?

Guys talk big scary words about the terrorist threat and yet think women are nuts to be cautious about the men in their live who carry guns. But think of it from our point of view, using the same logic you use to talk about Muslims and terrorists: sure, most of you are OK people. But how do we know? And the nutters among you kill so many of us, every year.

When the Orlando shootings happened, I didn't think "OMG, ISIS!" I remembered, in high school, having to hustle a teenage girlfriend out from her daddy's house, under the barrel of a shot gun, because Big Daddy found out she was a lesbian. I remembered having to go down to emergency services at 2AM with a gay boy freind who had a depressed skull fracture from getting hit in the head with a hammer by a Nazi skin at 2AM while walking home from a club. I have dozens of friends who've had similar experiences. So while I am sure you older, armed, white guys are by and large a very nice bunch of people, it's the armed lunatics who hide among you that give me pause. And the fact that your leaders don't denounce these guys makes me wonder if there's any way you lot can really be trusted, as a whole, even though I am sure you are mostly great people.

And here's another very sad but true fact: in the last twenty years, more American soldiers have been sexually assaulted by their comrades in arms than by all of America's enemies, combined. I have a good friend who was an Army mechanic in Gulf War I who was raped by a superior officer. She still has PTSD.

Please understand that I am not bringing all this up to accuse anyone or make you feel bad or to be an argumentative pain in the a**. I am just pointing out why so many women don't believe in this "guns protect the innocent" stuff. That's a very charming fantasy guys have. Pity it just isn't true.

You might want to ponder these FBI murder stats: they tell a pretty grim story about who is killing Americsn women and under what circumstances:

link

I'm sorry to have to say this, guys, but from my point of view, Muslim terrorists blowing me up on Boxing Day are the least of my worries when it comes to violence.

But again, I suspect that I'm an hysterical female to worry about being killed, raped, or beaten by some guy I know. I realize that this is an illogical paranoia that's nowhere on the level of the very rational fear you gentlemen have that any Muslim might be a hidden human bomb.

Chris ,
Not an easy way perhaps , or perhaps just not worth the effort .but I will try
You choose to interpret statements and events in your own manner to your own ends -Fine ,that's up to you and to anyone . But there is a gap between torture and denying not allowing someone the right to vote . You may think the gap isn't large but there is a gap . hence the word Nuance .

Also please point out to me where I said might makes right or even my people right or wrong? or even implied it .
you can't because I didn't- You seem to be making the assumption that because I dared to suggest that there are nuances in almost all discussions/arguments that I support your opponent and his views . Basically exactly the same thing Italwars thinks and has said (though you did phrase it better and generally are more lucid)

Chris , to address your last 2 posts .
In all seriousness what was the point of the last post ?
In the first -You made a very clear and intelligent series of points and facts to support your views .
But then in the 2nd -you went all snarky and smarmy – You seem intelligent enough to understand that the majority of readers here will now discount the first posting.
and for those that were interested to read the first part and thought that you done a good job of letting people know your thoughts – now wonder what why for the 2nd post
There was no benefit to writing it .

Grtbrt,

First of all, thanks for the response.

But let's talk about those nuances. How do you think they kept people from the right to vote for so long? Do you think it was kjust through peaceful means? I'm tempted to link this discussion to a photo of a lynching or congressional testimony of what the Klan did to people back in the day. I'm sure, however, you'll claim "Oh, but it wasn't so many". Yeah, but we are talking good and evil here, aren't we? And there's a special kind of evil that dedicates itself to keeping tens of millions of Americans essentialky unfree for centuries. And, seriously? The number of Americans killed by Muslim terrorists "isn't so many" either. Does that make it less evil?

But let's talk torture. Straight up torture. What "nuance" are you drawing, exactly, between Castro's headsmen and those of the Argentine government during the dirty war?

I remind you again, according to Mr. Jackson here, we are talking morals and good and evil, not pragmatics or realpolitik.

So if you could explain to me the nuances you're seeing there, I'd be much obliged.

As for you saying… No, it LOOKS like Mr. Jackson is saying that. You're just saying I don't get his point, by which I understood that you feel you do get his point and agree with it. So let's just hold you to the nuances of that point, then. Jackson thinks the right doesn't support evil people, unlike the left. You seem to feel than my argument that the right supports evil boils down to the right not letting blacks and women vote. That is, of course, one of the evil things the right has supported (and yes, it involved violence and torture -- look at South Africa if it is too painful for you to look at U.S. history). But what about all the other evil, torturous regimes the right has supported, beginning (as I pointed out and you seemed to have missed) with the Nazis?

So. Nuances on all this, G? I'm all ears.

Regarding the second post, in all seriousness, you don't understand why?

Let me break it down to you very simply, G: when I talk about a load of things the right has supported and you conveniently ignore that to say I don't understand "nuance" because supposedly my argument boils down to a false congruence between torture and the right to vote, then it makes me feel that I am being talked down to, as if I were an idiot.

There's a feminist term for this: mansplaining.

Thus the snark.

I mean seriously, G: go back and look at the long list of things I wrote about that the right has supported and that you somehow have translated into me "missing the difference" between voting rights and torture – as if repression of voting rights happened peacefully; as if I weren't also talking about the right's support for some of the bloodiest regimes on Earth; as if I hadn't mentioned the right's long flirtation with Hitler or its anti-semitism…

Well, G, I think I am entitled to a bit of snark. You obviously didn't read what I wrote before telling all and sundry that I am apparently too stupid to get the "nuances" of the differences between vote suppression and torture.

And, forgive me, but I am going to make a generalization here: that's a very typical guy thing to do when talking politics to a woman. (Of course, now you'll say you didn't know I was a woman, which I guess could be true, but forgive me again: I doubt it.) Thus the snark.

*trigger warning: snark*

And finally, G, what you're saying is "Gee, you talked sense and made a logical argument, but then you added a dose of snark, so that nullifies all your logic".

So you're basically asking for a safe space if you're going to talk about anything serious, is that it? Because that is really what it sounds like.

In the future, then, I'll be adding trigger warnings when I get sarcastic. I mean, after getting dawghaused for calling someone "honey", I am very aware of just how sensitive some people are around here.

And in the real world, Muslim terrorists were prevented from murdering innocent people, and the Australian police gave not one monkeys about the rights of American females while they were doing it.

Chris ,
Where to begin ??
First, please read what and not what you think I said.
First of all -do you have any idea of what my political thoughts actually are ? no you don't- so please do not project your opinions of what my claims will be onto me .
who are the "they" you keep referring to -
Regarding Nuance you lumped everything you accuse of the right of doing under 1 catch all sarco-post . everything from torture to women's right to vote ,Do you really think that they are the same ?
And please explain the systematic planned violence in keeping the vote from women?

No I said that by using the examples you did you didn't understand the nuances between your examples and was tarring everything with the same brush .

As to what evil and torturous regimes the right has supported -Yes they have and so has the left . They both do what they consider politically expedient regardless of human cost .
Perhaps it is just me but denying(by not making it a law ) someone the right to vote is a far cry from actual systematic acts of evil . Wrong Indeed ,but not Evil . evil is Rwanda, Nazi Germany , Pol Pot, Stalin , Franco -just to name the mire famous ones .

In all seriousness -no I don't : I didn't ignore all you wrote of . I chose not to comment on it because it was obvious . I chose to comment on what I considered you adding in an item that was not evil . I did not say you were too stupid to know the difference -I said that in common with a lot of posters here you have a tendency to automatically assume everyone disagreeing with them is absolutely wrong and too stupid to know better .

You can make any generalization you want -it wasn't politics that was being discussed ,it was classification of certain political moves

I know you are a woman -and don't really care .

I obviously HAD read it .

That wasn't what I said at all,
to quote you -"you obviously hadn't read what I wrote"

I said that by adding that (in my view unneeded)post you would likely take away from the impact of your first post . Purely my thoughts -but what you do is up to you .
Please read what my words actually say and not what you think I am saying .

And I haven't used "Gee" in decades .

I couldn't care less if you add a sarcastic meter or a bunch of little badgers dancing to the sounds of The Cure.
Doesn't change the fact that if anyone lays out a rational/logical thought /idea and then follows it up with a heavy dose of sarcasm ,before anyone has a chance to read what they thought, It will be taken less seriously in general .

So with all due respect to your wish to protect the innocent, it's not the wolves I'm so much worried about, but the rabid dogs. Especially the ones who think they are sheep dogs and need to protect me (usually from myself).
[…]
That's a simple fact that every intelligent woman knows and it is the reason most of us are less than thrilled to hear men talk about how they buy guns to protect us.

Hell no, I will happily take you gun shopping so you can take care of yourself. I'm a bit tight on cash right now, but I would let you borrow my 9mm for practice and familiarization (with me going unarmed while you have it). I just want it back when you get your own

Buying a gun as about as personal as buying running shoes: gotta have something that fits YOU. What fits me won't fit you (I have big hands and short fingers), so we are literally going to start at one end of the counter and work around until we find something that fits your hands and points right.

*****
And for the record, the Orlando attack was gay-bashing by a guy who was so far in the closet he couldn't admit he was gay to himself.

Perhaps all parties on all sides of this discussion need to bring the rhetoric down and deal with the issues more dispassionately.

From time to time, I agree with Rod. This is one of those times. The amount of hysteria I've been witnessing (from both sides) has simply gotten irritating. Take the time to see how things actually progress before making a call.

Chris, I echo Lion's sentiment. True POTG do not see themselves as the one and only bulwark against evil in whatever form it may take. We want everyone of sound mind and good intent to responsibly arm themselves in order to protect themselves, their loved ones, and those around them. It doesn't matter what color they are, whether they're male or female, what they're attracted to, any of that. There exists a fundamental human right to armed self-defense, and I encourage everyone to exercise that right.

LOL- I have to say that the 2 posts above have to be the best examples of sarcasm I have seen on this site in a long time . My hat is off to you .

I especially like S.P's -start with talking about Hysteria ,before going into a very well done satirical paragraph about Guns. and the part about "a fundamental human right to armed self-defense " SUBLIME !!!

And the way you 2 work together – Did you communicate before hand or are just naturally good enough at satire to go off the top of the head ?

Chris – See you don't need to label things as Sarcasm -that naturally comes through when written as well as the above posts.

Well done boys !!! I applaud you .

"Hysteria"? Are you implying that someone's womb is floating about, Phantom? :D

Lion, Phantom, let me make this very clear: I do not want a gun. It is overkill for 99.9% of anything I might actually, realistically encounter. In fact, I do not know a single gun owner who has really used a gun to protect themselves in the U.S., although I hear a lot of anonymous people talking about that on the internet. I also hear that chemtrails are athing on the internet, too, and that you can make a lot of money helping out Nigeria's Ministry of Finance.

I don't want a gun because it is too dangerous to leave lying about and, if I lock it in a safe, it's not like I am going to be able to get to it in the extremely rare instance that I might actually need it.

I don't want a gun because they don't actually keep you safer. The two times I have been mugged, the people who did it worked in a group and caught me unawares. If I had had a gun, it'd've done nothing to stop the muggings, might have been used on me, and would now be floating around the streets in the hands of a criminal.

I like playing the odds – one reason I don't play the lottery. Buying and owning a gun is the best possible way to raise one's chances of being killed by a gun, if only through partner violence or suicide.

And finally, if I were the kind of person to actually be really frightened by this sort of thing, why the hell would I have a gun in my house where an initmate partner, the most probable person who'd kill me, could get it?

No, I'll take my baton and pepper spray, thanks. They are more than enough to deal with most situations and can be easily carried in my purse or left lying around without too much risk. Of course, an intimate partner could use them, too, but I feel much easier in conscience just hiding them somewhere. Besides, I mostly date other gamers and am confident that my upper body strength is greater than most of theirs. :D

POTG means what, exactly? People Out of Their Gourds? Pakistani Otter Training Gurus? Personal Optomology Technician Geek? I am confused.

I agree with responsibly arming and protecting, by the way, which is why I carry a baton and spray. If I actually knew one person who successfully defended themselves with a handgun, I might feel differently. I do know, however, several people who have been threatened by loved ones with guns and I know four people – three of them ex-military who showed every sign of being responsible, sane people – who ate their own handgun.

So thanks but no thanks, guys! Most women would probably tell you the same.

…I prefer to be armed at work as the world is a dangerous place.

You hear that a lot from the weapon happy crowd. Personally, I find that line to be, at best, naive and at worse, pathetic. I'm NEVER found myself so afraid of my environment that I felt the need to "pack iron" (and I've lived and worked in some rough areas, far rougher than any of you, most likely).

Another FACT: Statistically, the person most to likely to get capped by the "home defense" weapon is either the owner or a loved one.

And for the record, the Orlando attack was gay-bashing by a guy who was so far in the closet he couldn't admit he was gay to himself.

And your point? Not a particularly unusual situation (thanks, in large part, to the ridiculous stigma being gay still carries in this country). Or was that just a bit trolling for laughs?

Having gotten death threats from employees (my primary role is discipline and termination, with a hefty dose of union relations on top), I would always rather be armed and prepared to defend myself than be defenseless and inoffensive to people who feel that my Glock is icky and evil.

Anyone who feels the urge to carry a gun outside has serious issues..

If you love in a nation so lawless that you need one at home for personal protection then you live in a failed state.

The best part about these discussions is if you don't care all that much either way, in which case you get both sides denouncing you :-)

Own as many guns as you want, just leave them in the car when you stop by.

And for the record, the Orlando attack was gay-bashing by a guy who was so far in the closet he couldn't admit he was gay to himself.

And your point?

That it wasn't a terrorist attack, despite claims of DAESH to the contrary.

Anyone who feels the urge to carry a gun outside has serious issues.

Like the desire to take responsibility for their own safety, since the police in the US are, by multiple SCOTUS decisions, NOT RESPONSIBLE for my safety. Their entire purpose is to come take the report after someone else sticks a knife in me.

Over on the Guild forums (where Piers et al usually hang out), there was a report of a guy walking home from the pub, got jumped, got knifed, and passed away at the hospital. Fortunately, the police do have a suspect.

It's [expletives deleted] feral primates like the [expletives deleted] who knifed a dude for nothing (No report of the guy who died having his wallet taken) that make me desire to carry.

To say nothing of actual rabid or attacking animals in the area.

Own as many guns as you want, just leave them in the car when you stop by.

Sure thing. Your house, your rules.

Bangorstu: "Anyone who feels the urge to carry a gun outside has serious issues..; If you live in a nation so lawless that you need one at home for personal protection then you live in a failed state."

My grandmother was around 55 years old and managed a department store in Cleveland, Ohio (despite everyone else in the family moving out several years earlier). She was accosted by two would be robbers after work (~8 PM I think). Her concealed weapon was the difference between her being robbed, or worse, and one of the would be criminals "peeing himself" before they left rather quickly.

Barring firearms to law abiding civilians, takes away the ability of women and the elderly to protect themselves, and makes them very vulnerable to 'strong arm robbery.'

That it wasn't a terrorist attack, despite claims of DAESH to the contrary.

Ok, point taken. As for DAESH taking credit, if you get a flat tire going to work, the fleckless idiots would take credit for it…

Apache – the fact that oyu expect your criminals to carry guns points to the second part of my sentence.

Firearms offences are very rare in the UK because gun are simply hard to get hold of – and the sentences for using them (or waving them around) harsh, so it's not usually worth it.

Hence I don't feel terrified by not owning a firearm.

I think i have the better end of the deal.

there are evil people in the world who desire to kill, maim, and destroy anyone that is good

I agree with the COL. …

@ Chris Vermont … I know we are not the same gender. However, some of the things you posted about males, guns, etc., makes me believe we exist in different realities. Or on a different planet. Also seems your posts are full of hyperbole, condescension, with a heavy dose of being patronizing in the mix. Just my observation.

One badguy down and one good guy wounded in Italy. My hat is off to the Italian officer who stopped that animal, and my prayers to the wounded officer for a swift recovery.

Agreed … and you may not know this Chris. But Dn Jackson is a long time serving LEO. And IIRC, he served in Desert Storm. I think he knows what "evil" is. As does COL Scott, a US ARMY Airborne Ranger Officer and IIRC, SF as well.

My definition of evil – anyone for any reasons that want to harm or kill me, my family, pets, friends, my fellow countrymen and my country's allies. Again, the reasons why means little to me.

Too much politics here, let's take it for what it was. Utter delusional scum prevented from killing innocent people. Well done the Aussie police.

Amen ! One more worthless scumbag gone. And yes, this thread has gone awaaay off topic.

Yes, well done the Oz police.

Not sure what the rest of this is about.

Agreed … And yes this thread has gone very much off the rails.

My libertarian friends are still making excuses about how Pinochet was a great guy and Suharto was a peace-loving democratic reformer.

Get new friends …

We're not a fearful people in Australia, such that we don't feel the need to arm ourselves.

As others have said, it's not fear it's being prepared to not be a victim. The only thing I'd fear is not having the wherewithal to attempt to stop a terrorist attack or murder of some innocents.

And Chris or any others, I don't drive around [or COL Scott I'd imagine] armed, playing Batman. Looking to save Damsels, Nuns, orphans, etc., in distress, from evil, etc., …
Now Dn Jackson being a LEO, he and his fellow LEOs … well a part of their jobs is to do such actions to save those from "the Bad Guys". And I'm very glad he and my local LEO friends are around and doing a very difficult job. That over the passed few years has been made more difficult for a number of reasons.

You hear that a lot from the weapon happy crowd. Personally, I find that line to be, at best, naive and at worse, pathetic. I'm NEVER found myself so afraid of my environment that I felt the need to "pack iron" (and I've lived and worked in some rough areas, far rougher than any of you, most likely).

Well I'm not weapons happy. But when on some cases as a PI. I occasionally would carry my .45 if I was working in some very "rough" environments. But generally if confronted my plan would be to withdraw and possibly call LEOs. I'd would have only used my pistol if I had no other choice. I'm not Batman. And discretion is very much the better part of Valor.

Anyone who feels the urge to carry a gun outside has serious issues..

If you love in a nation so lawless that you need one at home for personal protection then you live in a failed state.

Once again a very thinly vailed attack on the USA. IMO anyone who makes such a claim has "serious issues". I'd rather be prepared to defend myself than be a statistic.

And to compare the USA to a "failed state" with all the locations in Africa, the Mid East and A'stan of course, etc., That can't even take care of themselves, etc.. Again makes me want to ask, who really has serious issues ?