Report: Islamic terrorism poses little threat.

Lots of if's in there, you are working that hamster in your head till it reaches your conclusion. The gun owner made the right choice. Many, many times the gun owners makes the right choice. Most people who own guns are very responsible and respectful of the guns power and the inherent risks. Likening an active shooter scenario to that of a food fight not only shows your bias, but also a decided lack of thought and intelligence about what real gun owners are like. Not perfect, but certainly not dunder headed food fight participants. I would show you a list, an extensive list, of women children and other homeowners who have actively defended their home and family from criminals, but somehow I'm sure you could IF those away too.

Playing out scenarios further, like you did above, leads people to profile Muslims too.

 

I've never heard of a solo spree shooter targeting a police station, and one wouldn't last too long if they tried.

You don't give responsible gun owners enough credit; always be sure of your target. Once a couple of gun owners that were near the shooter put him down, the firing would stop.

So, you're advocating that people try to tackle armed lunatics?

If, if, if......if Napoleon had machine guns & ammo, he wouldn't have lost at Waterloo.

Here are 2 real world examples;

A DAUGHTER'S REGRET (SUZANNA HUPP)

Police: Off-Duty Cop Saved Lives In Mall - CBS News

 

I am in the fortunate position in this discussion because I am not in the US so whatever you decide about your security is your issue. In respect of 9/11, at the time of the event in the US it was very early morning here. I was awaken by wild cheering up the road at a refugee hostel at about the time of the major event in the US. I thought they must have been having a party and went back to bed. It was only on my way to work that I heard it on the radio and I then reflected on the cheering. Clearly, some people were pleased with the event. They were not at that time Australians, but probably now are.

I do not live in the US and have very limited exposure to your media and your politicians. It is arguable that I live in Asia and I certainly deal with people from Asia on a daily basis. My world view is shaped differently to yours. It is not dramatically different, but certainly different. Your race and religious issues are not ours. We have them, as every nation does, but they are different and driven by a different history

If the US was not in the world, then, believe me, there would be a lot more brawls. When the US and the Soviets were more evenly poised, the world was actually safer. There was more stability as you were either under one umbrella or the other. The US was a beacon for those seeking freedom. The oppressed were either fleeing to it or seeking its intervention and protection. I recall Kennedy's speech at Berlin, in particular, what he said about democratic countries don't have build a wall to keep their people in. Your problem is keeping them out and that should tell you something.

Oppressive dictatorships will always seek to restrict the US intervention and terrorism by a surrogate is very useful. Terrorism is a psychological weapon, and an attack in the US is useful in manipulating the political will overseas and in the US. It is about power, not religion. Most Moslems, in vast overwhelming majorities, just want to go to work and live their lives in peace. Extremists are funded by regimes or corporations for political power purposes. Iran is one such regime and is currently using surrogates to murder people in the Balkans (not on your television - then check out other world news sources). Arab countries are fearful of Iran's intent. Guess who stands in Iran's way? Again, the mullahs demonize the US in religious terminology, but really it is about power, as the Mullahs (those in power), strange as it seems, are in the wealthy bracket with big landholdings. The Mullahs political power is in the country, not the cities with the intellectuals. Do you also think that North Korea is safe? They recently sunk a South Korean destroyer and have been firing rockets across Japanese waters. Perhaps they might fund terrrorism? They have supplied weapons in the past.

When you talk about the lack of attacks in the US. Remember your forward defence offshore has been ramped up. You may think that is only the US that has done that, but the actuality is that most of the free world have been supplying intelligence and interdicting plots well away from the US. The US intelligence services are also supplied by numerous intelligence services off shore. The security blanket for the US is enormous. If you decide to downsize your commitment, then other countries may not consider it a high priority to maintain their vigilance for attacks on the US that may be hatched in their own boundaries. If you aren't interested, they why should they be? The US diplomatic effort after 9/11 was considerable to make sure they were interested.

The Taliban are unlikely to attack you as they are only interested in fighting in Afghanistan. As I recall, they actually passed on your embassy in Pakistan information about a possible attack on the US prior to 9/11 but it was ignored. Reduce your vigilance if you will, but the result will be a reduction in vigilance by offshore intelligence agencies. Do you think that is safe? It is not about religion or race, it is about threat driven for reasons of power. At the end of the day, it is your call.

 

What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights - YouTube