Everyone is scared, everyone has guns.

[slammin.e28]

[mrsleeve]

seriously?
that's your argument?

the police have a purpose, they are also tested for mental health instabilities.

John Smith, local raging alcoholic, loves his nascar, spousal abuse and highpowered semi-automatics.

see the difference?
which one will likely abuse their right to arms?

The cops


We have dash cam after dash cam footage of cops, abusing their power and thinking that badge and gun allow them to say a do what ever they want. We have documented incident after incident where the cops fire and miss or take way too many shots with few hits, yet get to keep their job and gun. Raid the wrong homes, kill dogs, AD and all their buddies then shoot a home owner when they are in the wrong house and let him bleed out on the lawn in front of his wife and kid while refusing him medical treatment. Or how about the cops that passed from Dept to Dept that keep getting in trouble like the OK Highway patrol that tried to choke out a Ambulance supervisor with a patient on board after pulling them over for "speeding"

Cops have no legal or constitutional duty to protect you when you are in harms way if it will put their lives or well being in jeopardy. See Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services., and most recently in 2005 SCOTUS case Gonzales V. Castle Rock.

If you dont have means to protect your self then what, L/E has no duty to help you out when the bad people come to your door.

If they have no duty to protect you form harm or danger, why do they need firearms, of all types, "Armored troop carries" surveillance drones, helicopters, Militarized reaction teams wielding full special forces tactics and weapons that are now primarily used to serve non violent warrants for say things like unpaid student loans.

Yes we have a mentally stable police force dont we. But I am pointing to the isolated few bad eggs that slipped though the cracks, then why is ok for the cops to have a few bad apples and the same cant happen the general population????

[Unearth078]

just replying to the first page cause i dont care to read any further due to recent events.

meeting at a police station is weird, but i would oblige if i was truly interested after calling seller a weirdo. id say the OP is paranoid but you dont know the background of them.

i also dont find anything wrong with carrying when doing a transaction depending on circumstances. if i am headed into unknown territory i absolutely would no offense to the seller.

[Victell]

The only realistic answer I see is there needs to be someone at the scene, at the time the crime begins to be available to prevent or stop the crime before it escalates. Why? because historically, responders cannot show up in time to prevent mass killings. How do we do this? Do we station police at every school and public crowded venue everywhere? It would work if possible, but that is a lot of police, a lot of salaries, and a lot of needed revenue. Also, unless the police were undercover, the uniform would make the policeman the first target of a shooter. Second possibility: If someone were armed who appeared as a regular civilian, with a hidden firearm, and NOT on a government salary, and were present at the beginning of a planned massacre, I believe that a planned massacre can be easily prevented, as the shooter would not expect to be shot back at, and would quickly retreat, kill himself (as we see historically), or be shot by the armed civilian.

This is like saying the best way to stop a drunk 100 mph speeder is to catch up to them and then run them off the road with your own car. Id much rather that person wasnt on the road in the first place.

Next look where all these mass attacks happen. PLACES WHERE GUNS ARE NOT ALLOWED SCHOOLS, MILITARY BASES ( yeah thats kinda strange huh)

Fort Hood and Fort Bragg off the top of my head. The best military in the world couldnt prevent those deaths. Also note how many occasions our military is getting shot and killed by the some of the people they are working closely with every day: the afghans they are training to be police, security etc. Too many times they are turning their guns on their american trainers. Literally while everybody has an actual gun in their hand.


I dont know what the big resistance is from some gun owners regarding better restrictions on who can get and KEEP their guns. They should be at the forefront of trying to limit access to those who cant handle their shit. And the best solution you can come up with is 'arm everybody'? Bullshit. America is not going for it. If you dont get your house in order then the government will do it for you, at the permission of the vast majority of the rest of us. Just like what happened in Australia.

I keep relating this to cars, because they are also a big killer. Personally I would be for much more strict licensing laws for who can drive and keep their cars. Annual testing to make sure you can handle your car in emergency situations. Mental testing as well. And a breathalyzer in every single vehicle on the road. Id be more than happy to oblige this minor inconvenience and cost to make sure thousands of innocents dont die. Does this infringe on my 'freedom'. Of course not. Why cant a lot of gun owners see it this way? What is different in my analogy?

[CorvallisBMW]

I just find it amusing that all the pro-gun people keep coming back to this "They want to ban guns" idea. NOBODY has proposed that, even the most die-hard anti-gun voices. Get your facts straight before you start spouting off bullshit. Reasonable restrictions on military-style assault weapons and large-capacity magazines =/= banning all guns. Get that through your thick fucking skulls.

[iamsam]

This is like saying the best way to stop a drunk 100 mph speeder is to catch up to them and then run them off the road with your own car. Id much rather that person wasnt on the road in the first place.

I disagree with this analogy because:

- A lot more effort is expended (and greater chance of failure) in catching a car going 100mph and running them off the road rather than shooting someone in the back (who is in the process of massacring another group of people).

- To catch a car going 100 mph (assuming you start at rest) will require a huge amount of acceleration (which many cars won't be capable of) and a huge amount of time to catch up, during which many things can go wrong, putting bystanders in danger.

- Once you catch up, running the offending car off the road will probably result in the death of you and the offending car (at 100mph) and possibly bystanders as well.

- Shooting a shooter only requires minimal effort (assuming you have the balls to do it), and only takes a moment, with much less chance of collateral damage as your suggested analogy.

So in conclusion, I too would much rather the drunk driver not be on the road in the first place (or the shooter), I think we can all agree on that. But if that situation is in progress irregardless of what we would prefer, shooting someone at a relatively close range would be a lot easier (and safer) than a high speed car chase.

I dont know what the big resistance is from some gun owners regarding better restrictions on who can get and KEEP their guns. They should be at the forefront of trying to limit access to those who cant handle their shit. And the best solution you can come up with is 'arm everybody'? Bullshit. America is not going for it. If you dont get your house in order then the government will do it for you, at the permission of the vast majority of the rest of us. Just like what happened in Australia.

I am all about restricting gun sales to people who have criminal history, violent/irrational tendencies, etc, I think we absolutely ought to do that. The difficulty comes in determining whether or not someone meets that criteria. My personal "best solution" is not to arm everybody, as I mentioned above. My personal solution is to arm me.

And I agree, America won't go for arming everybody. However, I can assure you that America also won't go for disarming everybody either, and I would venture to speculate the attempt to disarm everyone will result in far more bloodshed that the attempt to arm everyone. I have a feeling that people wouldn't be too willing to allow someone to take their guns away at the "permission" of anyone else.

I keep relating this to cars, because they are also a big killer. Personally I would be for much more strict licensing laws for who can drive and keep their cars. Annual testing to make sure you can handle your car in emergency situations. Mental testing as well. And a breathalyzer in every single vehicle on the road. Id be more than happy to oblige this minor inconvenience and cost to make sure thousands of innocents dont die. Does this infringe on my 'freedom'. Of course not. Why cant a lot of gun owners see it this way? What is different in my analogy?

I can't say I share the same opinion here. I think I would get quite annoyed if I needed to go to annual mental testing and driving testing, and I think breathing into a breathalyzer EVERY time I wanted to drive my car would just drive me crazy. I have never had alcohol in my whole life and I suppose I never will. However, automobile related deaths VASTLY outnumber gun related deaths, that is a well-known fact. However, cars are required to be used every day, whereas guns aren't, making it more difficult to impose the kind of restrictions you mentioned on them. But I diverge off topic here, this thread is about guns.

[canadiankid]

^fort brag was a secured area. Might as well have been a gun free zone.

And what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
All you antis are completely missing the point of the 2nd ammendment. It isnt to protect possession of handguns, it isnt to legitimize hunting rifles, but to provide citizens with protection against tyranny of government. Then you say, oh but you dont need guns now, its a nice safe country. Well, disarming citizens is always the first step in fascism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-oNMHNrS-8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[canadiankid]

And finally,

A quote from ben franklin,
"Those who give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security and will lose both."

Doesnt get much simpler than that. If you dont see it, there is no hope for you.

[iamsam]

I just find it amusing that all the pro-gun people keep coming back to this "They want to ban guns" idea. NOBODY has proposed that, even the most die-hard anti-gun voices. Get your facts straight before you start spouting off bullshit. Reasonable restrictions on military-style assault weapons and large-capacity magazines =/= banning all guns. Get that through your thick fucking skulls.

Your insults and obvious anger are not helping your argument.

First of all, my mom suggested a full ban of all guns, hence my email reply to her which I posted here, hence my references. I know full well there won't be an all-out gun ban, you don't need to convince me. It would all but cause a civil war.

As far as the "reasonable" restrictions you mentioned, I wouldn't go so far as to call them reasonable, but useless. Even a total ban of the sale and production of assault weapons and large magazines will do nothing to the numbers of those items already under private ownership in the US.

[mrsleeve]

Fort Hood and Fort Bragg off the top of my head. The best military in the world couldnt prevent those deaths. Also note how many occasions our military is getting shot and killed by the some of the people they are working closely with every day: the afghans they are training to be police, security etc. Too many times they are turning their guns on their american trainers. Literally while everybody has an actual gun in their hand.

You are aware that military posts off the practice ranges are GUN FREE ZONES right??? The only ones with loaded weapons are the MP's, you knew that right??? All those guys you see out on drills with their weapons are UNLOADED and nothing but fancy clubs. Those attacks are no different than walking into a civilian school or hospital off post and doing the same thing. COPS are the only ones that are allowed to be armed in both cases.


As to the sandbox. I cant speak for, but I am fairly sure many of the same rules apply in certain places that are considered safe. Hopefull some of our active guys will fill that bank in for me a little better. Fucks sake during WWII the last Japanese hold outs Iwo attacked the night before the bulk of the invasion forces were going to ship out. Command had come though and take everyone's Live ammo that evening.

I dont know what the big resistance is from some gun owners regarding better restrictions on who can get and KEEP their guns. They should be at the forefront of trying to limit access to those who cant handle their shit. And the best solution you can come up with is 'arm everybody'? Bullshit. America is not going for it. If you dont get your house in order then the government will do it for you, at the permission of the vast majority of the rest of us. Just like what happened in Australia.

BECAUSE WE HAVE A RIGHT NOT A PRIVILEGE to such things. You know the difference between those 2 words dont you?? The word right it tossed around a lot about many things that are not rights. Driving is a PRIVILEGE, even though free travel is a RIGHT. If you dont understand the difference then please ask we will help clear the nuances of this for you.

In nearly ever other country in the world, owning a firearm is a Privilege granted to you by the state, and as such can be regulated or revoked at a whim. Yeah the gun bans have done wonders for the UK and Australia huh.

I keep relating this to cars, because they are also a big killer. Personally I would be for much more strict licensing laws for who can drive and keep their cars. Annual testing to make sure you can handle your car in emergency situations.

Um ok thats fine, but annually really that seems a bit excessive and also you have a giant portion of the population that might be a little under skilled by your definition, but still need to get to work, the grocery store, and so on that live in places where there is no public transit. How do you purpose these people get around if you all the sudden you pull their licenses.

Not everyone is a fucking race car / performance driver nor can everyone be some people just cant, just like some cant spell, and other will never understand which end of a screwdriver to use with out direct supervision.

I do agree with you to a point. I would support a drivers ed program more like the Finns have, and start at any time with the kids. But to revoke everyone else that has been driving for year is lunacy.

Mental testing as well. And a breathalyzer in every single vehicle on the road. Id be more than happy to oblige this minor inconvenience and cost to make sure thousands of innocents dont die. Does this infringe on my 'freedom'. Of course not. Why cant a lot of gun owners see it this way? What is different in my analogy?

Last time I checked you had to be mentally fit get a D/L

Breathalyzer in my personal property, when I have not broken any laws FUCK YOU. I know plenty of people that have had to have one of those things. 1/2 the time they dont work and your late to work because it took you 2 hours to get your shit started in the am. Or it wants you to blow while rolling down the highway and if you dont it will shut the thing down on you in 30 sec. that causes more hazards. You cant talk on your phone and drive but you want people fumbling with a breathalyzer, that if it malfunction (which is often) will be shutting your shit down in the middle of the road great fucking plan.

Ummmm You drivers licenses is contingent on you blowing when asked by the constabulary, we have laws against drunk driving, just like we do assaulting other people or killing someone with a firearm with out proper justification. Adding more laws and layers of red tape is going to do nothing but punish the VAST MAJORITY of the rest of us.

. Get your facts straight before you start spouting off bullshit. Reasonable restrictions on military-style assault weapons and large-capacity magazines =/= banning all guns. Get that through your thick fucking skulls.

Speaking of getting your facts straight, Those are all but banned they are very highly regulated and a huge PIA to get and VERY VERY VERY costly, for a clapped out needs to be rebuilt from the ground up M16, you looking a 1 1/2 to 2 nicely 24v swapped e30's. Seems Kinda restricted to me like very fucking restricted since 16 states flat ban them and CT is one of them.

AN AR15 pattern rifle is NOT A MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPON it just has a similar appearance, OHHHHHH it looks like what SEAL team 6 used to kill Osama so there for its the same thing UMMMMM NO please try again there are very different and not easily converted to be the same thing. The tools required to make a AR15 into a true assault weapon, (make the Select fire trigger and auto bolt carrier fit and work) are the same it would take to make a solid block of Aluminum into a correct receiver. So on that line of thought that someone might convert one over, lets call all solid blocks of metal Assault weapons or machine guns too.

What do you call a high capacity magazine? If you are going to reference the latest 2 incidents no high capacity mags were used those were just standard capacity mags. Why should I or anyone else be barred from having such items because 3 fucking waffleswaffleswaffleswaffles bags have used them for a illegal purpose in the last 15 years???


Thank you Kid from Ontario

[Kershaw]

Why did you bring up the UK or Australia? We have 4x the homicide rate they do, definitely didn't think that through.

I've read that people get robbed at knife point in the UK, because the common criminals don't have guns.

[cale]

The thread has turned quality when a late comer shows up with catch phrases, quotes and pictures to make his arguments.

And yes military bases are and should be secured gun free areas.

[slammin.e28]

Loving this thread.

My boss isn't though 'cause I'm wasting too much time here.....

[mrsleeve]

By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER,
Ph.D., author of 'On Killing.'
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains:
What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for?
What is worth living for?
- William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: 'Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.'
This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation.
They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
'Then there are the wolves,' the old war veteran said, 'and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.' Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep.
There is no safety in denial.
'Then there are sheepdogs,' he went on, 'and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.' If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, 'Baa.' Until the wolf shows up.
Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them.
This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle.
The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, 'Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes.' The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, 'Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.' When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into 'warriorhood', you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself. Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, 'Let's roll,' which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke -- Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep.
Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice.
But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many police officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying a weapon. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, 'I will never be caught without my gun in church.' I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, 'Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?'
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for 'heads to roll' if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, 'Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?'
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in 'Fear Less', his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: '...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling.' Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be 'on' 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...'Baa.'
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from 'sheephood' and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

Dave Grossman, Lt. Col. USA (ret.) is the author of On Killing, On Combat, and Warrior Mindset. www.killology.com, www.WarriorSci.com.

[Quadrajet]

Of course this will only be looked up by those who care. Look up why the Clackamus Mall shooting had such a low death toll. I tried to link it here, but I'm kinda tech deficient in some areas. KGW TV interviewed the guy, IIRC.