"Bigger Threat to Americans: Terrorists or Americans?"

RallyPoint Shared Content — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:54:44 -0400

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/

Bigger Threat to Americans: Terrorists or Americans? - The SITREP Military Blog

It’s the headline, but shoot — let’sask the question again to get it through our thick skulls: what’s a bigger threat to America — to Americans — to your grandfather …

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Aug 28 at 2015 3:18 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:18:58 -0400

Heart disease. Kicks gun deaths by far.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 4:45 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:45:52 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Aug 28 at 2015 6:00 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:00:40 -0400

It may be true that Australia is comparable is size to the US but both CA and TX have larger populations than the entire country of Australia. FL and NY are close. It is also true that Australia is a largely rural country.
It is also true that according to FBI figures most US killings are committed by about 12-13% of the population. That may sound racist but it is true. It is also true that the majority of US gun deaths are drug dealers and gangbangers killing each other and that is not a bad thing. If you count violent crimes per 100,000 population the US is way down the list. A fact that is often ignored is that criminals don't obey laws. By federal law anyone with a felony conviction or a domestic violence conviction is banned from even touching a gun. It should also be noted that pretty well anything bad that can be done with a gun is already illegal. The sad truth is that you can only stop law-abiding people from having guns. Laws don't apply to criminals. As a final thought: drugs are banned and so was alcohol during prohibition. How did those bans work out?

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Aug 28 at 2015 7:08 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:08:03 -0400

Question might be better asked to terrorist.....we know Americans are the biggest threat to terrorist, even while on vacation!

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 29 at 2015 2:20 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 02:20:44 -0400

Considering that the "Terrorist" already tried to blow me up once and missed. I am more concerned about an "Idiot" Fellow American with a Gun considering how awash in them we are. Did 4 years in West By God Virginia at NSGD and if that doesn't scare you about Guns nothing will.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 29 at 2015 3:39 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 03:39:36 -0400

Some Good Points Here.

Jim Jefferies US Gun Control Live Stand Up Comedy Best comedian ever

It is all about the pure numbers of guns in our society. There is one fact you just cannot get around. In all countries the less guns available to the public...

Response by PO3 David Davis made Aug 30 at 2015 12:00 PM

PO3 David Davis — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:00:30 -0400

I knew all of these stats. That does not warrant gun laws. Gun training is the most important thing to combat children being shot. As far as in city shooting. Not much can be done. Those communities need to start educating everyone from the basics of 2+2.

As far as suicides over 100.000 vets have killed them selves since 1999. Lack of guns would not save them.

If you take our guns we will kill each other with knives.

What is your point t.

Response by PO1 Jeffrey Brown made Aug 30 at 2015 12:11 PM

PO1 Jeffrey Brown — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:11:57 -0400

Here is some research that shows a different story. You will notice it does not support the "US is a death trap, and so many guns are the reason" argument.

http://crimeresearch.org/.../comparing-murder-rates.../

Sure, we are not very likely to be killed by a terrorist. But, linking it solely to guns (and using suicide rates to support it) is a little disingenuous. We have things that kill us at larger rates. If it was about saving people that is where the real focus should be.

Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries - Crime Prevention Research Center

Charles Blow in the New York Times last year made the very common argument:“America has the highest gun homicide rate, the highest number of guns per capita . . . .” In another story, the New York Times quotes researcher David Hemenway as claiming:“Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more …

Response by Cpl Chris Cargile made Aug 30 at 2015 1:14 PM

Cpl Chris Cargile — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:14:25 -0400

Of those gun-related deaths, let's delete everyone shot by a law enforcement officer. Then I would love to see the remaining number broken down as to legal vs illegal ownership/ possession of the firearm in question. I will willingly admit that I don't know that number, but I'd be willing to bet that you'd find that we have more of a criminal problem than a gun problem. But hey, if you think turning your guns over to the government will make you safer then brother, hammer down. I doubt, however that many of the violent criminals in our society will be as enlightened and accomodating.

Response by Cpl Craig Meaux made Aug 30 at 2015 1:23 PM

Cpl Craig Meaux — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:23:08 -0400

The response time for police has gone from double and even triple the usual time for various reasons. Do I hold up a "Gun Free Zone " sign to an armed criminal while waiting 30 minutes for a cop ?

Response by PO3 Paul Stai made Aug 30 at 2015 1:29 PM

PO3 Paul Stai — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:29:06 -0400

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....

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 2:20 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:20:35 -0400

This is nothing but an anti-gun diatribe.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 3:06 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:06:51 -0400

Stop posting this tripe. You're perpetuating factual inaccuracies and it's irresponsible.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 4:44 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:44:29 -0400

It is quite obvious that this person has an agenda that is anti-gun and any numbers can be skewed to show the exact results to support any theory. The data keeps changing depending on the "side" and there does not seem to be any factual evidence that is not skewed one way or another.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 5:01 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:01:18 -0400

I don't dispute the numerical facts.
2 obvious facts I don't recall reading: •Chosen irresponsible non secure weapons. •Some hell bent on doing evil with zero regard for human life and consequence.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2015 9:59 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 21:59:12 -0400

What a crock of horse manure. Most of the gun deaths are from suicides, which isn't gun violence, per se. If there were no guns, the suicides would not go down, they'd simply use other means to take their lives, and then it isn't tracked as "gun violence." That is one area where the research results are flawed (one of many - there are entire professions built on the exercise of data manipulation). The rate of death and maiming from the simple act of driving a car is far higher than gun deaths, yet absolutely no one advocates for more restrictions on driving, because hell, we have to drive to get everywhere.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Aug 31 at 2015 8:39 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 20:39:44 -0400

Both.

Response by PFC Robert Falk made Sep 1 at 2015 10:43 AM

PFC Robert Falk — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 10:43:30 -0400

It is kind of a tie in my book. I say this because our congress is doing the same damage as any terrorist.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Sep 3 at 2015 6:49 AM

SSG Robert Webster — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 06:49:53 -0400

Whether they like it or not, the article promotes gun confiscation. Why, because it is using Australia as the model. The other problem with this is the stated part about suicide rates. The author/s used only the suicide death by gun statistic to support their point, what is not shown is the overall suicide rate and whether it declined by such a large amount. From what I have been able to find, my determination that the suicide comparison is a red herring. In looking at just the suicide statistics; the rate between 1997 and 2013 for the US has remained steady at between 11.2 to 12.6; however in Australia for the same time period the rate has fluctuated sharply 14.7 in 1997, 8.9 in 2007, to 10.9 in 2013.

Response by PO3 J.W. Nelson made Jan 23 at 2018 1:37 PM

PO3 J.W. Nelson — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:37:41 -0500

Idiots that want you to give up your guns !!

Response by SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter made Jan 23 at 2018 3:15 PM

SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:15:46 -0500

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel WOW Thanks for sharing those numbers are staggering. Peace!

Response by PO3 J.W. Nelson made Jan 23 at 2018 4:47 PM

PO3 J.W. Nelson — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:47:22 -0500

This is such an asinine question and article......the entire thing should never have been posted !

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2018 11:06 AM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Sep 2018 11:06:06 -0400

Natural Law!