Posted on Aug 28, 2015
"Bigger Threat to Americans: Terrorists or Americans?"
14.7K
95
30
8
5
3
From: The SITREP
It’s the headline, but shoot — let’s ask the question again to get it through our thick skulls: what’s a bigger threat to America — to Americans — to your grandfather and your son and your daughter and your poker buddies and Taylor Swift and the Miami Dolphins and your coworkers and the Winnebago Man and your soulmate? Is it terrorists (which could be all of the sh*tbags combined like ISIS and al Qaeda and the Taliban and lone wolves, etc. etc.) … or us — as in Americans — with loaded guns in our hands.
Us.
Americans with guns.
And it’s not even close.
According to a recently-published examination by Nicholas Kristof for The New York Times, “more Americans die in gun homicides and suicides every six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.” Which is staggering.
There’s also these three extremely ugly facts:
More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history.
American children are 14 times as likely to die from guns as children in other developed countries, according to David Hemenway, a Harvard professor and author of an excellent book on firearm safety.
Hemenway also calculates that the U.S. firearm homicide rate is seven times that of the next country in the rich world [first world] on the list, Canada, and 600 times higher than that of South Korea
Kristof supports these indisputable facts (you can’t argue facts, o’ faithful patriots) with a number of great points. The first being this: “We the People” — without hesitation — rubber stamp a litany of regulations and legislative padlocks on items that are far less menacing than firearms because we know that they still possess the ability to injure or maim someone. And we care about one another, so they exist for that very reason. No one deserves to die or be seriously injured over human error. Sure, it still happens, but the attempt to lessen the likelihood that it can is what differentiates us from animals. It’s a matter of civility, and living in a modern society.
Toys. Mutual funds. Ladders. Swimming pools. Food. The United States of America regulates all of these things in some way — and seriously, too. But guns? Eh.
Oh, and how about cars? Automobiles. You can make a case that they’re just as quintessentially “American” as guns are. The open road. Freedom. The cherry red convertible blazing through the Southwest, past the Wile E. Coyote rock features, soaking up the Spaghetti Western sun.
Yet, according to Kristof and others, we’ve made vast improvements over the decades on how safe cars can be. Through seatbelts and airbags and licenses and driving tests and inspections we’ve “reduced the fatality rate by more than 95 percent” since 1921.
Here’s the best part though …
Pragmatically, we don’t have to search far and wide for a model to mimic. Because it exists in fine working form in a country the exact same size as the continental United States. In a land … down under. Where women glow and men plunder. Where beer does flow and men “chunder”. And carry huge Bowie knives and wrestle crocodiles and get turned down for life insurance policies and punch sharks and really aren’t any less tough/macho than we are.
Going to leave this right here (via the NYT):
Australia is a model. In 1996, after a mass shooting there, the country united behind tougher firearm restrictions. The Journal of Public Health Policy notes that the firearm suicide rate dropped by half in Australia over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved.
Here in America, we can similarly move from passive horror to take steps to reduce the 92 lives claimed by gun violence in the United States daily.
First order of business: pull the fire alarm and kick the callous, greedy politicos out of bed with the gun lobbyists. You know, gun lobbyists. The guys and gals who make it impossible to do anything regarding legislation — even in the wake of a bloodbath at a f*cking elementary school.
Gun lobbyists. The sniveling life forms that operate on dollar signs, clammy handshakes and cold 7-Eleven pizza.
https://military.id.me/firepower/bigger-threat-to-americans-terrorists-or-americans/
It’s the headline, but shoot — let’s ask the question again to get it through our thick skulls: what’s a bigger threat to America — to Americans — to your grandfather and your son and your daughter and your poker buddies and Taylor Swift and the Miami Dolphins and your coworkers and the Winnebago Man and your soulmate? Is it terrorists (which could be all of the sh*tbags combined like ISIS and al Qaeda and the Taliban and lone wolves, etc. etc.) … or us — as in Americans — with loaded guns in our hands.
Us.
Americans with guns.
And it’s not even close.
According to a recently-published examination by Nicholas Kristof for The New York Times, “more Americans die in gun homicides and suicides every six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.” Which is staggering.
There’s also these three extremely ugly facts:
More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history.
American children are 14 times as likely to die from guns as children in other developed countries, according to David Hemenway, a Harvard professor and author of an excellent book on firearm safety.
Hemenway also calculates that the U.S. firearm homicide rate is seven times that of the next country in the rich world [first world] on the list, Canada, and 600 times higher than that of South Korea
Kristof supports these indisputable facts (you can’t argue facts, o’ faithful patriots) with a number of great points. The first being this: “We the People” — without hesitation — rubber stamp a litany of regulations and legislative padlocks on items that are far less menacing than firearms because we know that they still possess the ability to injure or maim someone. And we care about one another, so they exist for that very reason. No one deserves to die or be seriously injured over human error. Sure, it still happens, but the attempt to lessen the likelihood that it can is what differentiates us from animals. It’s a matter of civility, and living in a modern society.
Toys. Mutual funds. Ladders. Swimming pools. Food. The United States of America regulates all of these things in some way — and seriously, too. But guns? Eh.
Oh, and how about cars? Automobiles. You can make a case that they’re just as quintessentially “American” as guns are. The open road. Freedom. The cherry red convertible blazing through the Southwest, past the Wile E. Coyote rock features, soaking up the Spaghetti Western sun.
Yet, according to Kristof and others, we’ve made vast improvements over the decades on how safe cars can be. Through seatbelts and airbags and licenses and driving tests and inspections we’ve “reduced the fatality rate by more than 95 percent” since 1921.
Here’s the best part though …
Pragmatically, we don’t have to search far and wide for a model to mimic. Because it exists in fine working form in a country the exact same size as the continental United States. In a land … down under. Where women glow and men plunder. Where beer does flow and men “chunder”. And carry huge Bowie knives and wrestle crocodiles and get turned down for life insurance policies and punch sharks and really aren’t any less tough/macho than we are.
Going to leave this right here (via the NYT):
Australia is a model. In 1996, after a mass shooting there, the country united behind tougher firearm restrictions. The Journal of Public Health Policy notes that the firearm suicide rate dropped by half in Australia over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved.
Here in America, we can similarly move from passive horror to take steps to reduce the 92 lives claimed by gun violence in the United States daily.
First order of business: pull the fire alarm and kick the callous, greedy politicos out of bed with the gun lobbyists. You know, gun lobbyists. The guys and gals who make it impossible to do anything regarding legislation — even in the wake of a bloodbath at a f*cking elementary school.
Gun lobbyists. The sniveling life forms that operate on dollar signs, clammy handshakes and cold 7-Eleven pizza.
https://military.id.me/firepower/bigger-threat-to-americans-terrorists-or-americans/
Posted in these groups: 
Terrorism
Terrorism
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 23
11
11
0
I'm going to point out what everyone already knows; That the author of this article is making broad strokes "colored" with profanity to add a "truth" credo to their point. In response, here's another "broad but true" statement:
You have a much greater chance of being killed in a car accident than being killed by a terrorist as well.
I hesitated to post comment to this because it may fall into that "grey" area of what's helpful and what's rhetorical (and yes, it's long-winded, so apologies forwarded)...However, given the fact that so much of this debate focuses on who should and shouldn't have a certain type of weapon(s)...if any...I feel those in the Profession of Arms are key persons to weigh in.
Let's be serious about what causes tragic incidents such as those the author cites; It isn't because someone owned a lethal weapon...it's because the weapon became a means to carry out their lethal intent. A car, a pipe, a fist can also be a deadly weapon in the hands of someone who means to kill.
The "enemy" is comprised of those who have this intent.
I wholeheartedly agree with making it as difficult for such people to arm themselves to nefarious ends; but I've heard very few of those passionately calling out for that offer any detailed explanation for how that is to be achieved other than "background checks". Let me ask you, what would the "flags" be...who would adjudicate a decision...who would pay for the infrastructure to conduct and administer the process?
If there is a reasonable answer to those questions, existing or forthcoming, beyond the safeguards currently in place; then maybe there is a point at which a fifteen minutes online at the local gun shop isn't enough. I myself was actually a bit surprised the last time I purchased a weapon that it took less than a half hour from walking in, to be on the street with a firearm.
Then again, anyone looking into my records would find none of the "typical" indicators. Does the fact that I've never been arrested, never been prescribed a psychotropic drug, never been accused of rape, robbery or assault provide all the evidence needed to determine I am a law abiding, peace loving...more importantly...competent buyer? Certainly, even the rather simple process in place must look for these "obvious" traits...which, admittedly, isn't preventing the evil from access.
This means that the only way to properly enforce extensive verification of an owner's competency to exercise this right requires investigation. In a "perfect world", well trained (well paid), vetted and objective officials would fairly differentiate a traffic citation from an assault charge...a late mortgage payment from delinquency on child support. In that "perfect", non-existent, impossible world, the people judging a citizen's (now conditional) right to bear arms would be objectively looking for a "green" light...instead of a "red" light. Possible indicators would be researched, weighed, and investigated again, beyond any shadow of doubt...
...but like I said, this isn't a perfect world.
The overworked, underpaid, hoping to retire government agent tasked with judging my "rights" would see that I've been in the military, deployed overseas, moved multiple times since my return, had a host of jobs and relationships over eight years, that I'm supporting a family on a single income, that I have communicated with foreign nationals in the last two years, that I have debts...the list goes on...and rather than take the risk (let alone time) to determine if I'm the "average" person, or a "ticking bomb"...what do you think will occur?
No one of the current Administration's mindset is going to end the career of someone for denying a weapon to an applicant...but can you imagine the backlash if they did and were wrong?
Worse yet, how long are we from requiring someone to acknowledge that they do not subscribe to any group or view that doesn't espouse whatever society's current definition of being a "team player" is?
Do we have so much naivety as to assume that this kind of power is easy to control...that it doesn't lend itself to extreme unction as the only way to enforce standardization? I ask you, if you ever served in a recruit training command, did you "correct" only those truly out of standards...or everyone around them? Is it even possible to wrangle this sort of subjectivity without giving rise to accusations of preference or ulterior motivation?
No-It is not.
Yes-We need to do something about a society that has perverted "freedom" to mean the unquestioned, unchallenged right to demand anything and everything one desires without first proving themselves worthy. Absolutely-I don't want someone laying awake at night hoping an ISIS terrorist will try to attack them so they can "show what their made of". Seriously-If you can't shoot a pattern of at least three out of five consistent shots at minimum defensive range, is it wise to carry a weapon on your person that you may be forced to use in a life and death struggle?
You have to take a test to get a driver's license at least once.
Firearms Dealers like money...Ranges like money...We have scores of veterans looking for work who have trained people in this manner.
Let's say that you want that spanking new 1911 (me too, if anyone wants to get me one for Christmas)...Let's suppose you pay a range and a range officer to take a class on safety and procedures, which if passed successfully, get's you a "chit" to take back to the store carrying your new "Betsy"...Let's say you fill out a reasonable background form that requires listing three references of your choice...Let's say a Fed calls those three people...Let's say five to ten working days later, your go back to the dealer, who has your cleared application, and you get your weapon-even if it is a Barrett...If you're only "reference" is your ex-wife or mother in law...perhaps you need to focus on OPSEC in addition to accuracy.
Does that reflect the intent of the 2nd Amendment? Perhaps not...But we aren't anywhere near as principled as the society that wrote it into law.
Will that stop violent crime? I wouldn't bet your life on it.
The only other option is what we have now...and I think that system is already too intrusive as per the intent of the "2nd" .
However, left untouched, that option will eventually be taken as well because we are a society that is fearful rather than prudent...demanding rather than dutiful. Our leadership will bend to the cries of bloody terror because at the end of the day, too many of us define what we believe by how our chosen "side" tells us to. Politicians use whatever means available to stay on top...even if it means defending the evil while persecuting the innocent when the evil has more supporters.
I don't personally think a weapon should be any more regulated than a circular saw...its a tool like any other. Yet the continued decline of our founding principles won't stop banging at the gate, nor fail to recognize every opportunity to point out our flaws. I say we, as those who cherish our rights, be the first to offer means of protecting those who do not know what we know, and do not understand why personal accountability is greater than collective control.
You have a much greater chance of being killed in a car accident than being killed by a terrorist as well.
I hesitated to post comment to this because it may fall into that "grey" area of what's helpful and what's rhetorical (and yes, it's long-winded, so apologies forwarded)...However, given the fact that so much of this debate focuses on who should and shouldn't have a certain type of weapon(s)...if any...I feel those in the Profession of Arms are key persons to weigh in.
Let's be serious about what causes tragic incidents such as those the author cites; It isn't because someone owned a lethal weapon...it's because the weapon became a means to carry out their lethal intent. A car, a pipe, a fist can also be a deadly weapon in the hands of someone who means to kill.
The "enemy" is comprised of those who have this intent.
I wholeheartedly agree with making it as difficult for such people to arm themselves to nefarious ends; but I've heard very few of those passionately calling out for that offer any detailed explanation for how that is to be achieved other than "background checks". Let me ask you, what would the "flags" be...who would adjudicate a decision...who would pay for the infrastructure to conduct and administer the process?
If there is a reasonable answer to those questions, existing or forthcoming, beyond the safeguards currently in place; then maybe there is a point at which a fifteen minutes online at the local gun shop isn't enough. I myself was actually a bit surprised the last time I purchased a weapon that it took less than a half hour from walking in, to be on the street with a firearm.
Then again, anyone looking into my records would find none of the "typical" indicators. Does the fact that I've never been arrested, never been prescribed a psychotropic drug, never been accused of rape, robbery or assault provide all the evidence needed to determine I am a law abiding, peace loving...more importantly...competent buyer? Certainly, even the rather simple process in place must look for these "obvious" traits...which, admittedly, isn't preventing the evil from access.
This means that the only way to properly enforce extensive verification of an owner's competency to exercise this right requires investigation. In a "perfect world", well trained (well paid), vetted and objective officials would fairly differentiate a traffic citation from an assault charge...a late mortgage payment from delinquency on child support. In that "perfect", non-existent, impossible world, the people judging a citizen's (now conditional) right to bear arms would be objectively looking for a "green" light...instead of a "red" light. Possible indicators would be researched, weighed, and investigated again, beyond any shadow of doubt...
...but like I said, this isn't a perfect world.
The overworked, underpaid, hoping to retire government agent tasked with judging my "rights" would see that I've been in the military, deployed overseas, moved multiple times since my return, had a host of jobs and relationships over eight years, that I'm supporting a family on a single income, that I have communicated with foreign nationals in the last two years, that I have debts...the list goes on...and rather than take the risk (let alone time) to determine if I'm the "average" person, or a "ticking bomb"...what do you think will occur?
No one of the current Administration's mindset is going to end the career of someone for denying a weapon to an applicant...but can you imagine the backlash if they did and were wrong?
Worse yet, how long are we from requiring someone to acknowledge that they do not subscribe to any group or view that doesn't espouse whatever society's current definition of being a "team player" is?
Do we have so much naivety as to assume that this kind of power is easy to control...that it doesn't lend itself to extreme unction as the only way to enforce standardization? I ask you, if you ever served in a recruit training command, did you "correct" only those truly out of standards...or everyone around them? Is it even possible to wrangle this sort of subjectivity without giving rise to accusations of preference or ulterior motivation?
No-It is not.
Yes-We need to do something about a society that has perverted "freedom" to mean the unquestioned, unchallenged right to demand anything and everything one desires without first proving themselves worthy. Absolutely-I don't want someone laying awake at night hoping an ISIS terrorist will try to attack them so they can "show what their made of". Seriously-If you can't shoot a pattern of at least three out of five consistent shots at minimum defensive range, is it wise to carry a weapon on your person that you may be forced to use in a life and death struggle?
You have to take a test to get a driver's license at least once.
Firearms Dealers like money...Ranges like money...We have scores of veterans looking for work who have trained people in this manner.
Let's say that you want that spanking new 1911 (me too, if anyone wants to get me one for Christmas)...Let's suppose you pay a range and a range officer to take a class on safety and procedures, which if passed successfully, get's you a "chit" to take back to the store carrying your new "Betsy"...Let's say you fill out a reasonable background form that requires listing three references of your choice...Let's say a Fed calls those three people...Let's say five to ten working days later, your go back to the dealer, who has your cleared application, and you get your weapon-even if it is a Barrett...If you're only "reference" is your ex-wife or mother in law...perhaps you need to focus on OPSEC in addition to accuracy.
Does that reflect the intent of the 2nd Amendment? Perhaps not...But we aren't anywhere near as principled as the society that wrote it into law.
Will that stop violent crime? I wouldn't bet your life on it.
The only other option is what we have now...and I think that system is already too intrusive as per the intent of the "2nd" .
However, left untouched, that option will eventually be taken as well because we are a society that is fearful rather than prudent...demanding rather than dutiful. Our leadership will bend to the cries of bloody terror because at the end of the day, too many of us define what we believe by how our chosen "side" tells us to. Politicians use whatever means available to stay on top...even if it means defending the evil while persecuting the innocent when the evil has more supporters.
I don't personally think a weapon should be any more regulated than a circular saw...its a tool like any other. Yet the continued decline of our founding principles won't stop banging at the gate, nor fail to recognize every opportunity to point out our flaws. I say we, as those who cherish our rights, be the first to offer means of protecting those who do not know what we know, and do not understand why personal accountability is greater than collective control.
(11)
(0)
Sgt Daniel Bourne
It's nice to see a well thought out argument in a comment attached to an article like this.
Two good points here in particular. Get the veteran and law enforcement community to chime in a little more when it comes to gun control. And second, taking a look at a training approach to resticting gun ownership.
I'd have to agree with the articles assertion that the lobby tends to out shout other voices in the community of gun owners. Frankly their literature is to alarmist and full of hyperbole for me. The second amendment is important, and its originalist reading of keeping power in the hands of the people is relevant today as well. But let's look more closely at the stats presented. The majority of gun related injuries and deaths are suicides. That tells me that we have an issue with regard to proper training with fire arms. If that could be solved by the private sector, we could create a lot of jobs and help change the image of gun owners. We don't need to hire a slew of government officials and create even more of a tax burden. Simply require that an individual go through some training on a class of fire arm or show competency before purchasing said fire arm.
Two good points here in particular. Get the veteran and law enforcement community to chime in a little more when it comes to gun control. And second, taking a look at a training approach to resticting gun ownership.
I'd have to agree with the articles assertion that the lobby tends to out shout other voices in the community of gun owners. Frankly their literature is to alarmist and full of hyperbole for me. The second amendment is important, and its originalist reading of keeping power in the hands of the people is relevant today as well. But let's look more closely at the stats presented. The majority of gun related injuries and deaths are suicides. That tells me that we have an issue with regard to proper training with fire arms. If that could be solved by the private sector, we could create a lot of jobs and help change the image of gun owners. We don't need to hire a slew of government officials and create even more of a tax burden. Simply require that an individual go through some training on a class of fire arm or show competency before purchasing said fire arm.
(4)
(0)
Cpl James Waycasie
I live in Georgia and in my home town everyone who qualifies can legally open carry unless the establishment has a sign up no firearms. We have only had maybe 4 or 5 shootings that I can recall. I was born in 1961. A City further South of us fights fire with fire. Would you go and try to shoot up a town where it is the law that every household has to own at least one fire arm with ammo?
Gun Ownership - It's The Law In Kennesaw
By Jonathan Hamilton and David Burch
Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writers
http://www.mdjonline.com/StoryDetail.cfm?id=10017128&Section=Home%20Page
3-14-1
KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house. In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants." Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy." "People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case." In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge. Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide. "It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years." Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.
Gun Ownership - It's The Law In Kennesaw
By Jonathan Hamilton and David Burch
Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writers
http://www.mdjonline.com/StoryDetail.cfm?id=10017128&Section=Home%20Page
3-14-1
KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house. In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants." Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy." "People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case." In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge. Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide. "It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years." Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Are you even American to write such a piece ? Take out the "gun free" inter city crimes before you paint my USA with such a broad brush and if our children are dying from accidental shootings then let's try educating them again. My children were taught gun safety from day 1, AND that the greatest danger was from their uneducated friends....grow up and start being responsible for your own actions. The 2nd Amendment stands for a reason, a very valid and pressing reason. Teach your children and your women how to defend themselves....empower them, make them strong ...don't keep them weak and incapable of self defense. I am 6'6" and 230 lbs...because of my moral code women and children have nothing to fear from me but a well armed woman has nothing to fear regardless of my intentions...I for one , will support and train anyone willing to learn....
(8)
(0)
PO3 J.W. Nelson
Absolutely agree !! Very well put ! One must learn self-discipline ! That you for this post !
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google