So how do you propose being prepared for crazy and unpredictable people?

(I mean besides responding with completely uncontrolled and heavily armed paranoia)

Big Daddy, I am neither for or against guns because I don't think they really matter that much.

I grew up with them and used them most of my younger life for hunting and on the farm.
I don't bother keeping any guns around now simply because I can't be bothered with them.

We have people here who want to ban anything that looks like a gun. Right behind them are the people who want to ban knives.
In some places a baseball bat is considered a restricted weapon and you better have a good excuse if there is one in the trunk of your car.
Pepper spray is not weapon if it is for dogs or bears, but it might get you criminal charges of you have it on the subway...

At what point do you run out of things to ban?
It gets quite ridiculous sometimes.

On top of that I don't know anyplace where the police can not charge you with possessing a weapon dangerous to the public peace (or words to that effect) and let a judge decide if your rolled up newspaper, your wife's high heeled shoe or your grandma's cane is actually a weapon.

None of these measures deal with the crazy.
And yes, the crazy just go to the next weapon of opportunity.

We cut funding for the treatment of the mentally ill years ago and simply turned them loose in society.

Consider that the shooter at Virginia Tech was supposed to be restricted from having weapons and was supposed to be receiving psychiatric care, and the resources to do that, to make it happen, were not available.

Yes to the secondary post too, well mostly yes anyhow.
I mean other than keeping your head up and being reasonably cautious what else is there to do really.

One thing I do know is that I will never allow the fear of the crazies to run my life for me.
__________
And yes, this thread is going too political, which I wanted to avoid.
So I will stop there.

If there is any one life skill ice hockey has taught my son, it has to be "KEEP YOUE HEAD UP".

Sure there are other lessons, but it only takes being rocked on you butt once to remind one to keep your head up and on a swivel.

[quote=BigDaddyTX]It's like 9/11. Out of all the planes, only on one of them did the people on board decide to take out their aggressors. [quote]

The difference in reaction is largely explained by what the passengers were aware of.

On the other two planes passengers were told that the intent of the hijackers, armed with a bomb, was to fly to a neutral location and to negotiate their release in exchange for political prisoners. This is what hijackers did up to this time and it was what the passengers and fight crews expected and trained for.

The proper response in that case, if it were true, was to remain calm and don't do anything that might cause the hijackers to blow up the plane. Everyone stays cool and in a few hours, a few days at the outside, most of the passengers would be rescued or released and they would go home safe.

It was the understanding that the hijackers had a bomb but didn't want to use it and the expectation that most people could survive that kept people from attacking the hijackers.

On flight 93 things were different. There was a delay in takeoff and they were running behind the other three flights. The world watch stunned as the other two flights flew into the WTC towers and the pentagon was hit. The account of those flights got back to the passengers on flight 93 and they realized that the hijackers weren't intending to land and negotiate. That the plane itself was going to be used as a missile. That their only hope was taking control of the plane from the hijackers and landing it on their own. That if they failed to land it, at the very least, they could stop it being used as a weapon.

Their actions were primarily a last ditch effort to save themselves. Failing that to ruin the hijackers day by causing their mission to fail.

The difference was that the people on flight 93 knew what the intentions of the hijackers were. If the passengers knew this on the other three flight there is every expectation that the passengers would have reacted differently.

People can only react to the situation as they understand it. The passengers on flight 93 are made to seem overly heroic and the passengers on the other two flights exceedingly cowardly if it is assumed that all knew the intentions of the hijackers. By all reports the passengers on the first three flight either never knew what the hijackers intended or that it only became clear in the last moments.

Now that people know that the planes themselves can be used as weapons the calculus has shifted. A would-be hijacker with a gun had better have brought a lot of ammunition. Six shots isn't going to get it. Shoot everyone on board and there is a good chance better than half will live if they get medical attention. If the plane flies into a building everyone dies. No exceptions.

Which is why passengers are much less passive than they once were. Act like your causing serious trouble now and the good people are going to be coming at you from all directions and six at a time.

Hey, whatever it takes to get rid of the democrats and republicans.

benajammin wrote:

"Outlawing a tool does not remove it from criminal use. Look at England. They outlawed guns how long ago? and yet they still have people shooting people."

'still have' doesn't begin to describe it. shootings doubled in the first 5 years after the 97 ban and have kept rising since.

but the british are STILL convinced bans work and every time a shooting happens in the US they scoff at the US gun laws.

if that belgium incident had happened in texas those kids would have had a chance.

QJS

OK, I know I'm about to get a mouthful of something nasty, but I'll bite....

Based on your statement, you make the assumption that anyone who carries is (a) paranoid, (b) not in control of themselves, and (c) heavily armed. I'll take exception to all of the above. This isn't about politics. This is about mindset. One path leads ultimately to becoming a serf or a refugee. The other... is my path.

Paranoia is a specific psychological condition, and while I know it is not your intent to slander with this term, it is insulting. To the average person who can't be bothered to have 72 hours of supplies on hand, those of us who have 120 hours, or 240 hours, or just a month's worth of supplies are "paranoid". If believing that someone other than your self is ultimately responsible for your safety is paranoid, then I'm not sure why you are here. I'm not being nasty, but I have to ask that. It doesn't matter if we are talking getting lost in the woods, deciding to leave before a hurricane, or getting taken out by a meth head who wants the five bucks in cash you are carrying- all of those are real situations, and if not avoidable, failing to prepare for how to counter them is at best shortsighted, and more likely just ingorance in action.

By saying people who chose to be armed are not in control of their actions is very insulting, and shows you don't know much about people who practice any form of martial art, be it armed or unarmed hand to hand, bows, or firearms. To use any of them effectively, you need to be in control of yourself. The only way to beat discipline is luck.

Or perhaps you are thinking not so much of a random beserker, but of someone who flaunts laws. I have no respect for that type of person. My employer has a no weapons policy. Our parking area is not the most secure location. As a result, I choose not to carry anything heavier than a Swiss Army knife at or to work. It is not desirably, but it is the way things are. When my vehicle was down, I added a small can of pepper spray which stayed in my pack during the day, and that was it. When I used to carry regularly, I would not carry in a bar; when I used to drink regularly, I didn't carry period. I ask you if that is the action of a random beserker who is not in control of his actions?

As for heavily armed, I'm sorry, but that is a silly term. To a person with bare hands, someone with a rock is armed. Two rocks (one for throwing, one for smashing) in heavily armed when all you have is ten fingers.

Now, you do talk about avoidance. So we don't go out at night. We let the park become a dealing ground and crack house, and keep the kids out of it. Those of us who's socioeconomic situation gives them the luxury of avoiding bad parts of town do so, and if you can't, sucks to be you. Avoidance and situational awareness prevent walking into ambushes. But they can also make you a target. A "crazy" can see it two ways- as a threat to his status, or a sign telling the world you are prey. The really crazy, you can't avoid them if they want to play with you.

Sorry, I'd rather accept responsibility for myself, and be able to assist those around me. If that makes me paranoid in your eyes, then allow me to counter with this. It makes me a free man in my eyes, and the master of my own destiny. I have options other than running away or begging on my knees, just like I have options other than freezing to death or waiting on my roof for the helos to come. Sure, those options are open to me if they are the best ones, but I can now chose. Only small children, subjects and slaves have to rely on someone else to take care of them, and all are at the mercy of that "protector".

That would involve outlawing organized political parties period. One of the more interesting mechanics improvements found in the CSA's constitution.

Ironraven -- Agree with all, well stated. I too avoid areas where bad things happen but sometimes crazies seek out a target rich environment.

According to this Gun Crime Report, there was a peak around 2003 and figures have been in decline since (fig 3). The variation seems to depend on ease of importing.

I'm not going to scoff, and I don't approve of the bans we instituted after Dunblane (nor similar tabloid-led legislation over the last 10 years). However, even in 2002 we had only 0.15 gun homicides per 100,000 people, and the USA had 3.98 (fig 6). So pro-rata, the USA has 26 times as many gun-killings as the UK. For whatever reason I think it is working better here than in America. Only around 0.2% of our recorded crime involves guns. It's a different culture. In general when the public encounter the police here, neither side expects the other to be armed.