Tom Ridge on Guns

[LevelHead]

From CNN :

Some Americans have responded to the September 11 attacks by purchasing firearms. Ridge was asked about that phenomenon.

"The casual acquisition, the personal acquisition of a firearm I don't think is necessarily going to enhance national security," he said. "It may give an individual or family a greater sense of comfort, but at the end of the day that's not the best antidote to 21st century terrorist attacks."

 

[David Park]

What a bonehead.

If I only wanted "a greater sense of comfort" I'd go back to living in Condition White. The reason I bought a gun and got a carry license (before 9/11) was because it really does make me safer. Guess what, if everyone else did the same thing, we'd all be a little safer, thus making the nation safer. Also, if a family has a greater sense of comfort, by whatever means, isn't that precisely the antidote to terror & terrorists?

Of course, if we all became self-reliant gun owners we'd also be harder to control. I guess Ridge is more comfortable if the helpless sheep are cowering in fear and looking to Big Gov't for their salvation. :barf:

 

[Joe Demko]

Tom Ridge is no friend of gun owners. His history in PA shows that more than adequately. However, the point I think he was trying to make here is that ownong a gun does nothing to protect you from truck bombs, anthrax, targeted plane crashes, and the other mass-destruction tricks in the terrorist's repetoire.

 

[KP95DAO]

He was correct. Just buying a firearm does nothing for you. Did you then learn to use that gun effectively under difficult circumstances?

And, most noteworthy, are you allowed to carry that firearm so that it can be used to protect you when you need protecting?

He was correct in what he said.

 

[PaladinVC]

I'll bet it does as much good as unarmed Guardsmen in our airports.

 

[moa]

Well, Israel is one nation where terrorist attacks have been with firearms and successfully resisted with firearms, in many cases by citizens in the street, on a kibbutz, etc. This has been going on for decades.

It would appear suicide terrorist attacks using explosives has become more popular because there is less chance of the attack being stopped by armed resistance.

How about the terrorist attack at the India Parliment building the other day? Firearms were the chief weapon used by the terrorists.

Owning, carrying and being both proficient and willing to use the firearm may stop a terrorist attack.

About a week after 9-11, some guy who was chief of some international association of private security firms predicted that two and three man terrorist attack teams using firearms would be a very likely scenario. More so than crashing airliners into skyscrapers on a regular basis.

Tom Ridge needs to wake up. He is probably still thinking inside the box.

 

[Herb Leventhal]

Homeland Security

I have owned firearms for at least 40 years. I can well understand why many Americans stood in line to purchase firearms and ammunition after 9/11. FEAR! In fact they will never get to use these firearms against the actual terrorists. I think that our countrymen fear a breakdown of the society and if that happens you better dam well own firearms and know how to use them!
Herb

 

[Libertarian]

Admitedly it was 20th century but I have been told one of the biggest reasons the Japanese never seriously considered invading CONUS was the level of US gun ownership scared them. If this is true, perhaps someone should bring this to Ridge's attention. Guns in the hands of honest people do stop attacks.

 

[lonegunman]

I agree with Ridge; I saw the speech, and he is not talking about gun ownership in general, but specifically as to whether or not gun ownership could prevent future terrorist attacks.

Now certainly if a terrorist start's blasting away with an AK in McDonalds, a gun on your person would be quite handy.

But so far, that kind of attack hasnt occurred, and I doubt it will.

A gun isnt going to do much to protect you from a 747, a car bomb, or a biological agent. You won't even know you are in trouble until you realize you are dead.

Tell me how gun ownership could have stopped the 911 attacks?

If your argument is that the passengers on the plane should have been armed, you need to check which reality you are living in, because there is absolutely no way that carrying on a plane is ever going to gain enough widespread acceptance by the populace to allow that to happen. And even if it did happen, I am not sure how many people would have tried to use their guns to stop it. The terrorists led the passengers to believe they were only hijacking the plane. The passengers didnt know it was a suicide mission til the plane hit the building.

Now as for Ridge, I dont doubt that his support for the 2nd amendment is shaky.

But as he said, at the end of the day, gun ownership isnt the best antidote to terrorism.

 

[Sodbuster]

Casual acquisition of firearms is not an antidote to terrorism. That is true. Also true is the statement that registration, confiscation, and/or banning of same acquired firearms is not an antidote to terrorism. Another true statement: I wouldn't give you two cents for Ridge, Ashcroft, Mueller, and Dubya combined.

I'll be goll durned (please substitute here, using Nixon's proclivity for expletives) if not one of these buttwipes ever mentions the word freedom. That's the most valid reason to own firearms.

Sometimes you get so mad you just want to spit.

 

[Jeff Thomas]

But so far, that kind of attack hasnt occurred, and I doubt it will.

I certainly hope you're right, but I really fail to see the source of this optimism. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see an armed attack against Americans. And, if it occurs, I'll wager it will be back east or in CA ... some "gun free" zone. God forbid.

Regards from AZ

 

[lonegunman]

Jeff Thomas:

Actually it is pessimism, not optimism, that leads me to doubt that the terrorists would be likely to use something as ineffective as small arms!

I think they want to do the most destruction in the least amount of time, and make as big a scene as possible.

An AK in a school zone doesnt compare a bomb, or a plane, or a bio agent.

The number of unaccounted for terrorists in the USA right now is finite, and hopefully less than it was before 911. I am sure Al-Qaida wants every one here now to create the maximum amount of havoc possible, and there are a lot better choices than a gun to do that with.

 

[Bob Locke]

There have been a number of incidents in Israel of late in which a Palestinian has opened fire in public only to get dropped by some civilian.

Can't that sort of thing happen here? I don't see why not. All I know is that I, personally, will be prepared if it happens in my general vicinity.

Terrorism is like crime (in a sense), and crime is best deterred when the criminals (and terrorists) know that their chance of success is minimal. An armed populace, prepared to use force to defend itself, would be an excellent deterrent IMO.

Libertarian:

"A gun behind every blade of grass" was the phrase. And the Japanese were right (on that point).

 

[lonegunman]

The deterrent effect of an armed populace is already in place, and the terrorists undoubtedly know that.

Why bother risking it all in a shoot out when you could build a car bomb, park, walk quietly away and kill dozens of people without attracting attention to yourself?

More personal firearms are not the solution to every tactical situation, or we wouldnt be using B52s in Afghanistan, just M9s.

 

[Shootist45]

lonegunman

You mentioned that carrying on a plane would't gain much momentum by the general populace. I'd have to correct you and say it won't gain momentum by the powers that be, our governmant. They are creating a dependant society.

You also mentioned that the hijackers led the passengers to believe that it was nothing more than a simple hijacking and not a suicide mission. Remember that only a few of the hijackers knew it was a suicide mission?

I'm sorry to tell you but, IF I was armed on a plane and someone yelled "We're hijacking this plane!!" they would be inviting my God given right to self defense and defense of others.

Is this something, carrying on a plane, that I advocate? Not necessarily but, give me a choice and I'll protect myself and loved ones, thank you. As far as flying now, I've seen the added protection at airports. No, I won't be flying for some time unless I have no other means of travel.

 

[moa]

Also a ruse apparently used by the hijackers to keep the passengers under control is that they said they had a bomb and one of the hijackers apparently had some kind device strapped to him that might resemble a bomb.

We know this from the passengers on the airliner that crashed in PA.

When the passengers realized they were on a suicide flight they figured the hijackers were bluffing about the bomb, and attacked the hijackers.

 

[lonegunman]

Shootist45:

I dont think I would have used a gun, if i had one on the plane.

In retrospect, sure, it would have been a good idea.

But if I was sitting on that plane, heading to LA, thinking about a business meeting, and some fruitcake took control of the plane and said he intended to hijack it, I probably would have figured my chances of getting out of that situation alive would have been pretty good.

Most passengers on hi jacked planes end up alive.

 

[C.R.Sam]

Used to be that packin on a plane wasn't all that unusual. Passengers, flight crew......nobody really cared. And successfull hijackings were extremely rare. Then the ninnyblisses decided that packin heat on a plane was improper and we got airport security and company rules against packin. Hijack rate went up. Successfull hijack rate went way up.

A disarmed citizen has become a defensless serf.

Sam

 

[Phil Ca]

Well ...........Tom Ridge and the horse's ... he rode in on! Yesterday I entered a tool store and while looking at the sale sheet near the front door a pit bull with white froth dangling from its jowls ran up to the door and looked around wildly. Several people expressed concern for people's safety. The clerk called the animal control unit who never came there during the time I was in the store.

By the time I left the store the dog had run off and I was spared having to put a couple of rounds in its head in order to go to my car. I was probably the only CCW holder in the 20 or so other shoppers at that time.

The politicians want us to always need them or their minions to protect us from whatever is out there, and if you choose to think for yourself or take responsibility for your own protection you will eventually be made to be a pariah.

 

[Shootist45]

California CCW???????????

Phil Ca:

Who do you know that you got a California CCW?

Virtually unheard of!!!!