NC - Another campus robbery

imported post

imported post

I believe that self-defense is a *human* right which means that it is protected by the natural laws of the universe. Therefore, it has always been my opinion that any law that tells you that you cannot defend yourself should not be followed. I do believe that people should stand up for what is right and not just what someone else says is supposed to be right. If that means breaking the law, so be it. If one of those 33 students at Virginia Tech had broken the law and brought a concealed handgun with them to class that day, there would have been much fewer than 33 lives lost. I'd be willing to bet that after the shooting many students from across the country who currently owned firearms started secretly packing them to school even if it was illegal. The fact is that your life is more important than the law. Unless the government is willing to appoint a bodyguard to protect me 24/7 free of charge, I have the inalienable rights to carry whatever the hell I feel is necessary for my own protection.

So you have to figure out what is best for you. I am not outright advocating anyone to break laws but I do believe that people should make the choices that are best for them and everyone else. I believe that guns improve safety. Almost every time an unarmed "good guy" has a run-in with an armed "bad guy" it is the good guy that is hurt or killed. On the other hand, when both the good and bad guys are armed, it is usually the bad guy that gets hurt or killed.

These universities tell students not to walk alone at night or to blow a whistle if they are attacked. The media routinely reports unarmed people becoming victims of armed attackers. I believe that it is a conspiracy in a sense to create a culture of fear and an agenda to get people to give up their independence to think and act like sovereign individuals and instead gradually require more government intervention in their everyday lives. The biggest of those myths is that any individual should not be concerned about protecting themselves from attackers because that is the government's job. Yet the government advocates restrictions on travel and habits for individual safety such as not going out at night, not carrying too much cash, traveling in groups, not wearing too sexy attire (women), and avoiding certain areas. That is not the hallmark of a free country.

As more people depend on the government for personal safety and start restricting their own habits, there will be less safety and also less freedom. I get tired of hearing from people, "I shouldn't have to be afraid to go out at night" and similar such statements. No one is there to protect you except yourself so take personal responsibility. Adding more police does not improve safety. If you want to improve safety, you give every man, woman, and child a gun and teach them how to use it. Then you have everyone carry pistols in the nice to normal neighborhoods and everyone in the not-so-nice neighborhoods would be carrying long guns. Then crime would go down. Likewise, if you want to avoid another plane being hijacked, you start allowing citizens to bring guns on airplanes. Enough said.

imported post

protector84 wrote:

I believe that self-defense is a *human* right which means that it is protected by the natural laws of the universe. Therefore, it has always been my opinion that any law that tells you that you cannot defend yourself should not be followed. I do believe that people should stand up for what is right and not just what someone else says is supposed to be right. If that means breaking the law, so be it. If one of those 33 students at Virginia Tech had broken the law and brought a concealed handgun with them to class that day, there would have been much fewer than 33 lives lost. I'd be willing to bet that after the shooting many students from across the country who currently owned firearms started secretly packing them to school even if it was illegal. The fact is that your life is more important than the law. Unless the government is willing to appoint a bodyguard to protect me 24/7 free of charge, I have the inalienable rights to carry whatever the hell I feel is necessary for my own protection.

So you have to figure out what is best for you. I am not outright advocating anyone to break laws but I do believe that people should make the choices that are best for them and everyone else. I believe that guns improve safety. Almost every time an unarmed "good guy" has a run-in with an armed "bad guy" it is the good guy that is hurt or killed. On the other hand, when both the good and bad guys are armed, it is usually the bad guy that gets hurt or killed.

These universities tell students not to walk alone at night or to blow a whistle if they are attacked. The media routinely reports unarmed people becoming victims of armed attackers. I believe that it is a conspiracy in a sense to create a culture of fear and an agenda to get people to give up their independence to think and act like sovereign individuals and instead gradually require more government intervention in their everyday lives. The biggest of those myths is that any individual should not be concerned about protecting themselves from attackers because that is the government's job. Yet the government advocates restrictions on travel and habits for individual safety such as not going out at night, not carrying too much cash, traveling in groups, not wearing too sexy attire (women), and avoiding certain areas. That is not the hallmark of a free country.

As more people depend on the government for personal safety and start restricting their own habits, there will be less safety and also less freedom. I get tired of hearing from people, "I shouldn't have to be afraid to go out at night" and similar such statements. No one is there to protect you except yourself so take personal responsibility. Adding more police does not improve safety. If you want to improve safety, you give every man, woman, and child a gun and teach them how to use it. Then you have everyone carry pistols in the nice to normal neighborhoods and everyone in the not-so-nice neighborhoods would be carrying long guns. Then crime would go down. Likewise, if you want to avoid another plane being hijacked, you start allowing citizens to bring guns on airplanes. Enough said.

Click to expand...

Good post, and I agree. As for the part I bolded: actually, the reason that draconian security measures were applied to airport security in the first place was apparently due to a streak of hijackings (albeit ones where the passangers weren't harmed). So that point needs to be qualified with the requirement that some passangers be armed... if none of the "good guys" makes the choice to carry a gun, things won't be too different from how they are now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba-US_aircraft_hijackings

imported post

protector84 wrote:

Likewise, if you want to avoid another plane being hijacked, you start allowing citizens to bring guns on airplanes. Enough said.

Click to expand...

I'm not too sure armed passengers would make much of a difference. These days thecockpit door wouldn't be opened for hijackers and as long as that's the case the risk of an actualhijacking, taking control of the airplane and diverting it somewhere or using it as a weapon,is pretty slim.

Now in a "shoe-bomber" situation you may have a point.....

imported post

I'd start posting the "crime alerts" I still get from Cornell, but I'd rather not hijack (no pun intended) the thread.

imported post

Also we do have to be realistic that guns are not perfect either for self-defense but certainly are a big help. If someone is planning on shooting up a university, restaurant, or workplace, then having a gun may very well save your life as well as many others. Unfortunately, if it is a case of someone planning on blowing up the place, then there isn't much you can do. This is another point to bring up to these anti-gun people who think that the sole cause of crime is guns. Guns were never used in 9/11 or in the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma. However, they could have saved lives in these school and workplace shootings and certainly would have saved lives on 9/11 if passengers or staff on the flights were carrying.

Recentlythe most devastating mass murders have involved explosives. So even if Cho, for instance, could not have gotten a gun to kill 33 people, he could have put together a bomb to kill hundreds of people. Since people using explosives is relatively rare, it is still a good idea to let the "good guys" carry firearms in various establishments.

imported post

protector84 wrote:

Also we do have to be realistic that guns are not perfect either for self-defense but certainly are a big help. If someone is planning on shooting up a university, restaurant, or workplace, then having a gun may very well save your life as well as many others. Unfortunately, if it is a case of someone planning on blowing up the place, then there isn't much you can do. This is another point to bring up to these anti-gun people who think that the sole cause of crime is guns. Guns were never used in 9/11 or in the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma. However, they could have saved lives in these school and workplace shootings and certainly would have saved lives on 9/11 if passengers or staff on the flights were carrying.

Recentlythe most devastating mass murders have involved explosives. So even if Cho, for instance, could not have gotten a gun to kill 33 people, he could have put together a bomb to kill hundreds of people. Since people using explosives is relatively rare, it is still a good idea to let the "good guys" carry firearms in various establishments.

Click to expand...

Case in point: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/10394.html