How Adrian Pracon Survived Oslo Shooting? Tricks Which Can Save You

[jpak]

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/185812/20110724/oslo-shootout-bomb-blast-youth-camp-gunman-killer-survivors-adrian-pracon-tricks.htm

<snip>

So what helped Pracon survive?

Well, the answer would be nothing else but his presence of mind. The number of public shootout is increasing at an alarming rate, and there is a rising need for the common man to be more cautious and alert.

Here are some commonsensical measures from wikihow.com that one can use in case of a shoot-out or a threat of a similar situation...

1. Report to authorities when suspicious: You need not wait till the situation arrives. Even if a classmate or colleague threatens to bring a knife or a gun to the workplace or school, it should be immediately brought to the notice of the authorities, and let them do their best. It will be a good idea to also prepare school going kids for a situation like that and telling them what to do. People who lawfully carry weapons should explain the same to the authorities.

<more>

[ileus]

1. Throw things on to him/her: I recommend 240gr things @ 900ft/s

[jpak]

13. So - teenagers should be armed with semi-auto pistols with 30-round mags?

The Holy Norwegian Gun Moran shot kids

yup

[Abin Sur]

15. Don't be absurd

The original comment spoke of 240 grain bullets at 940 ft/sec...the largest capacity .45 ACP pistol that I'm aware of only holds 14 shots.

(which should be enough...as the saying goes, I carry a .45 because they don't make a .46)

[east texas lib]

2. The authorities in Norway did their best...

By cleaning up afterwards.

[chibajoe]

3. I have an better solution, how about he just shoot back?

Oh, that's right, he lives in a country where they have stripped away his right to defend himself. Fortunately, those of us living in the United States still have that right (in most places).

[snagglepuss]

4. Do you not read anything before spouting off nonsense? Norway's gun laws

are almost as lax as American gun laws.

[izquierdista]

5. Read?

Why should he, he has his gun(s).

[Abin Sur]

6. Norway's gun laws are "lax"? Not so much.

As per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway

To obtain a hunting license (necessary for the purchase of a hunting rifle/shotgun) , the applicant must complete a 30 hour, 9 session course and pass a written multiple choice exam. The course includes firearm theory, firearm training, wildlife theory, and environmental protection training.

Once the exam is passed, the applicant may enroll in the hunter registry and receive a hunting license. The membership must be renewed each year, through license payment. The hunting license is brought to the police station, where the applicant fills out an application for obtaining the proper firearm for his or her hunt. After evaluation, part of the application is sent back to the applicant if it was approved. Upon approval, the applicant can take the returned form to the store and purchase the firearm listed in the application.

For sports shooters, the qualification process for sporting is theoretically easier, but requires more time and practice. The applicant must enroll in a firearm safety course, lasting at least 9 hours. The course includes a written test, but is shorter than the hunting exam, as it only deals with firearm safety. Two thirds of the course is completed on the shooting range as practice. The passing of the test results in acceptance to the approved gun club, and a license for competition. However, while the hunters can obtain their firearm almost at once, sports shooters must prove their intentions to compete by actively training or competing in the gun club. This means regular attendance (at least 15 times) at gun club training over the course of six months. The applicant must use firearms owned by the club or borrowed at the range for this period. After six months, the applicant may apply for weapon ownership. The start license and a written recommendation from the gun club president are brought to the police station, and the competition class is filled out on the application. If approved, it will be returned to the applicant as with the hunter license.

Now let's contrast this with what required for me to purchase an AR-15 and a Glock 9mm pistol in Colorado. Assuming that I'm buying it from a private party, I hand them $1500. They hand me the weapons. Done. If I'm buying them from a dealer (or at a gun show from a private party) I have to go through a CBI check that usually takes 15 to 30 minutes. I fill out 2 pages of paperwork, give the dealer $1500, and walk away with the guns.

A bit of a difference, there...

[iverglas]

22. "A bit of a difference, there..."

Yes ... and where is the part that makes it prohibitively difficult for an average person to obtain a firearms licence and a firearm, including of the semi-automatic variety?

Take the course, pass the exam, propose a firearms purchase for hunting, have the proposal approved, purchase the firearm.

A lot of people deterred from getting driver's licences and buying cars in the US because of more or less similar requirements, are they?

(Spare me the car/gun analogy arguments. I refer SOLELY to the deterrent effect of licensing requirements -- more specifically, to the absence thereof.)

Who gives a crap how easy it is to lay hands on firearms in the US?

The question is whether Norwegian requirements have a deterrent/prohibitive effect on firearms acquisition there, and it seems pretty bleeding obvious that they don't deter or prohibit legitimate would-be firearms owners from owning firearms ... and appear to make it quite easy for non-legitimate ones to do the same.

[Abin Sur]

31. Yes, as it turns out.

Yes ... and where is the part that makes it prohibitively difficult for an average person to obtain a firearms licence and a firearm, including of the semi-automatic variety?

Take the course, pass the exam, propose a firearms purchase for hunting, have the proposal approved, purchase the firearm.

You didn't include the part where the potential sports shooter has to join a gun club and attend it 15 times over the course of 6 months, using guns owned by the club or borrowed at the range. After doing this for half a year, the applicant must receive a written recommendation from the gun club president to continue the process of acquiring a firearm.

A lot of people deterred from getting driver's licences and buying cars in the US because of more or less similar requirements, are they?

Since one isn't required to join a driving club for six months and attend 15 meetings, practicing driving with a borrowed car each time before being allowed to purchase and operate one's own car, it's not exactly a valid analogy, is it?

Who gives a crap how easy it is to lay hands on firearms in the US?

The post to which I was responding brought up American gun laws, thus my post.

The question is whether Norwegian requirements have a deterrent/prohibitive effect on firearms acquisition there,

That may will be your question, but it's not the question to which I was responding.

and it seems pretty bleeding obvious that they don't deter or prohibit legitimate would-be firearms owners from owning firearms ... and appear to make it quite easy for non-legitimate ones to do the same.

Given per capita gun ownership rates in Norway, I would agree that the regulations currently in effect don't prevent the average Norwegian citizen from owning firearms should they so desire. I was simply pointing out that Norway's gun laws are not almost as lax as American gun laws, as was asserted in post #4.

[iverglas]

35. you need some real-life experience

You didn't include the part where the potential sports shooter has to join a gun club and attend it 15 times over the course of 6 months, using guns owned by the club or borrowed at the range. After doing this for half a year, the applicant must receive a written recommendation from the gun club president to continue the process of acquiring a firearm.

Slightly more stringent than in Canada, which only requires initial membership in a club before a handgun or certain long arms may be acquired, and then places restrictions on transporting them (to and from the club/events).

None of that deterred Kimveer Gill from attempting a mass murder in Montreal with a semi-automatic rifle (managing to kill only one person before police on the scene shot him), or the bozo who took his pistol to the bar in downtown Toronto, got into a fight with a bouncer, and shot a passing pedestrian dead. Both had the appropriate licences for their firearms. Both were in breach of the transportation conditions, of course.

When a firearm may be used only at an approved facility (as in Canada), it should not be permitted to be removed from that facility. Simples.


Given per capita gun ownership rates in Norway, I would agree that the regulations currently in effect don't prevent the average Norwegian citizen from owning firearms should they so desire. I was simply pointing out that Norway's gun laws are not almost as lax as American gun laws, as was asserted in post #4.

That's nice. The point actually is that if the US had similar laws, there would evidently be little effect on legitimate gun owners.

[Abin Sur]

45. Regarding what, specifically?

Slightly more stringent than in Canada, which only requires initial membership in a club before a handgun or certain long arms may be acquired, and then places restrictions on transporting them (to and from the club/events).

None of that deterred Kimveer Gill from attempting a mass murder in Montreal with a semi-automatic rifle (managing to kill only one person before police on the scene shot him), or the bozo who took his pistol to the bar in downtown Toronto, got into a fight with a bouncer, and shot a passing pedestrian dead. Both had the appropriate licences for their firearms. Both were in breach of the transportation conditions, of course. When a firearm may be used only at an approved facility (as in Canada), it should not be permitted to be removed from that facility. Simples.

Paraphrasing you from post #22: Who give a crap how easy hard it is to lay hands on firearms in the US Canada?

...

(responding to my pointing out that I was actually on-topic) That's nice.

It is, isn't it?

The point actually is that if the US had similar laws, there would evidently be little effect on legitimate gun owners.

If that's the case, there's not much point in trying to enact such laws, is there?

Of course, it's quite obviously not the case, since it would have the effect of imposing substantial costs in time and money, as well unreasonable delays in the acquisition of firearms. What's more, there are other gun laws in Norway that, if adopted in the US, would have a huge effect on legitimate gun owners, such as a prohibition on concealed or open carry of firearms in public places. Norwegians aren't even allowed to keep firearms loaded and ready for use in their own homes; they must be kept inoperable in a safe, eliminating (legally, at least) their use in self defense. Whether or not you are in favor of stricter gun laws in the US, the adoption of Norway-style gun regulations would objectively have an enormous effect on the ability of Americans to purchase and use firearms.

[Atypical Liberal]

33. Oh, how about 30 hours of classwork?

and where is the part that makes it prohibitively difficult for an average person to obtain a firearms licence and a firearm, including of the semi-automatic variety?

Oh, I don't know, how about 39 hours of coursework to obtain a license and firearm?

The question is whether Norwegian requirements have a deterrent/prohibitive effect on firearms acquisition there, and it seems pretty bleeding obvious that they don't deter or prohibit legitimate would-be firearms owners from owning firearms ... and appear to make it quite easy for non-legitimate ones to do the same.

The point is, it is a huge hassle for anyone who wishes to own a firearm, and, as we have just seen, did nothing to prevent one of the biggest mass-murder shootings in history.

We can argue until the cows come home about how big or small a difficulty it makes it to get firearms in Norway.

But it is indisputable that it is completely ineffective at preventing shooting tragedies.

[iverglas]

36. oh my goodness!

39 hours of one's life!

The point is, it is a huge hassle for anyone who wishes to own a firearm, and, as we have just seen, did nothing to prevent one of the biggest mass-murder shootings in history.

If only we had those alternate timelines so we could take a peek at how many more tragic incidents, if not quite so spectacular, might have occurred had those restrictions not been in place.

Hmm. Well, we could look at figures for licences refused and revoked (Canada keeps them, if you want to take a look, I believe with some information about circumstances) and consider what might have happened had those individuals been granted licences.

Has someone claimed that any of the restriction such as exist in some countries, or such as are proposed, STOP all crime/killing? I think only a fool would do that. I'd hate to think you are addressing me as if I'm a fool.

Public policies and the application of those policies can reduce the risk of harm, and reduce actual harm. That is the aim, and that is the standard against which policies are to be measured.

Speed limits don't stop speeding, right?

[Atypical Liberal]

40. But they can't prevent epic failures.

39 hours of one's life!

Compared to zero hours here, that is a big deal. At my billable rate, that's almost $4000 of my time. So yeah, it's a big deal to me.

If only we had those alternate timelines so we could take a peek at how many more tragic incidents, if not quite so spectacular, might have occurred had those restrictions not been in place.

Hmm. Well, we could look at figures for licences refused and revoked (Canada keeps them, if you want to take a look, I believe with some information about circumstances) and consider what might have happened had those individuals been granted licences.

You can speculate and infer what might have happened all you like. Maybe thousands of people have been saved by restrictive gun ownership laws.

All I'm saying is they did nothing to stop the biggest mass-shooting murder in history. And when such restrictive gun laws fail so spectacularly, one naturally questions why one even bothers with them.

[iverglas]

41. no, what you're saying is

You can speculate and infer what might have happened all you like. Maybe thousands of people have been saved by restrictive gun ownership laws.
All I'm saying is they did nothing to stop the biggest mass-shooting murder in history.

... THESE laws did nothing to prevent it. Possibly no laws would have, as long as it is possible to obtain firearms illicitly.

I do hate to repeat myself, but MY proposal (for Canada) is that there be NO access to handguns or semi-automatic weapons -- that those used for sporting purposes be available only at the facility, and not possessed by individuals on their own premises or anywhere else.

Such laws would have prevented Breivik from obtaining his weapons LEGALLY. Whether he would have been able to obtain substitutes illegally, we can't say.

There is actually good evidence of the positive effects of Canadian firearms legislation on violence and homicide rates, in particular in certain categories (armed robbery, homicides of women by intimate partners) over a fairly long period, btw.

And 39 hours at my own rates would be closer to $8,000. But then, I don't work every waking hour of my life working, and I don't spend a lot of time calculating how much I would be paid for posting at DU at my billing rates ...

[Atypical Liberal]

42. Good luck.

... THESE laws did nothing to prevent it. Possibly no laws would have, as long as it is possible to obtain firearms illicitly.

Or legally, for that matter, as this shooter shows.

I do hate to repeat myself, but MY proposal (for Canada) is that there be NO access to handguns or semi-automatic weapons -- that those used for sporting purposes be available only at the facility, and not possessed by individuals on their own premises or anywhere else.

Well, good luck with your proposal. It will never happen in the United States withing our lifetimes.

[iverglas]

44. thick much?

me: THESE laws did nothing to prevent it. Possibly no laws would have, as long as it is possible to obtain firearms illicitly.

you: Or legally, for that matter, as this shooter shows.

Maybe you can tell me why I wasted my time typing that post, or more to the point, why you wasted yours posting that moronic "reply" that addressed nothing I said.

[Atypical Liberal]

46. Merely drawing your attention to the obvious. n/t

[SteveM]

50. Since you started, the "time wasting" is all yours! Enjoy, enjoy! nt

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Actually, this delayed my obtaining a hunting license in the US for a couple years.

Getting into the Hunter Safety Education course was a total pain in the ass, and required I leave work early 3 nights a week to get it done. That's a pretty big barrier for some people. Especially since the only thing I learned ANYTHING about in the class, was gutting and cleaning an animal. Something I most certainly would have picked up from a DVD or something, prior to going, as it is illegal in this state to just shoot an animal and take the horns, or other trophy. You have to take the meat.

[krispos42]

38. You don't need to "propose" anything to get a driver's license.

That's a pretty plain difference.

Take the course, pass the exam, propose a car purchase for driving, have the proposal approved, purchase the car.


And if you're an adult, you don't even need to take a course. Driver's ed is mostly for school-age kids under the age of 18.


You also don't need to get a license to purchase a car, and you don't need to have a car to get a license.

But in Norway you have to have the money (I assume the classes aren't free) and the ability to take the time (and probably do some extensive traveling) to get take classes. Then you have to prove you have the time and money to go on a hunting trip.

And this isn't a deterrent?

I'll also note that the shooter used a rifle that cost €1,400, or over $2,000. That same rifle in the US would cost maybe $1,000. Where did the extra grand come from? Is there some sort of excise tax that double the selling price of guns?



Off topic: I was in Toronto last month briefly. It was pretty, and the highway system looked pretty capable. I thought an $18,000 fine for speeding was a bit much, though!

[iverglas]

39. were you reading a highway sign in French??

I thought an $18,000 fine for speeding was a bit much, though!

I haven't driven through Toronto lately ...


For driver's licences, you do need a different class of licence to operate different vehicles: motorcycle, truck ... at least you do here. And have to pass different tests. Not all that dissimilar from the proposal re firearms acquisition in Norway.

And if you're an adult, you don't even need to take a course. Driver's ed is mostly for school-age kids under the age of 18.
You also don't need to get a license to purchase a car, and you don't need to have a car to get a license.

Yes, here we go again. Cars come equipped with magical cloaking devices so people can drive around in them in public without being detected ... the way they can transport firearms around in public without being detected. And cars don't have licence plates on them allowing them to be traced to their owners, of course. "Registration."

[krispos42]

43. It was on the highway from Buffalo to Toronto...

...big giant sign that said something to the effect of if you were caught going over 130kph, the fine was $18,000.


That struck me as a bit excessive, especially since 10kph is only about 80mph. Maybe it wasn't $18,000, but it was definitely 5 figures.

You live in the Toronto area, yes? Or is my memory getting all rusty?




Regarding licenses, we do the same thing here. Truckers have to know more and are driving much larger pieces of equipment, so it's no surprise there. And motorcycles are fundamentally different from cars, so it's no surprise that those are different, either. But again, you don't have to prove need to get the license.

Cloaking devices aside, cars have both serial numbers on them in several locations (the most obvious being in the dashboard) in addition to a metal plate with a registration number fastened to it. Cars use public resources in their operation, which is why they are taxed and registered. Guns don't.

[gejohnston]

11. You are joking right?

The number of people who own guns does not always correlate with the regulations. Finland has tighter regulation than us, but have more gun owners per capital. Norway is more rural, while Netherlands is more urban. Mexico has tighter regulations than any of the three. You see how that is going.

[SteveM]

51. Yes, Mexico would be top-rated in the GOP/Brady's Book of Exquisite Gun Laws.

[chibajoe]

19. In all that reading on the subject that you have done, I guess you missed

the part where there is no legal concealed carry in Norway. Or maybe you missed the part where they can only transport firearms to and from their shooting club, the one they have to join in order to legally own a gun. Or, apparently, any of the other restrictions on firearm ownership that exist in Norway that do not exist here in the United States.

A 10 second search on Google would be enough to clue even a retarded chimpanzee in on the vast differences in their gun laws and ours.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

23. my goodness gracious me

Are you trying to be sarcastic?
Or are you merely ignorant or lying?


Now if I said that ... in this year's gun dungeon ... well, we wouldn't be reading it.

[PavePusher]

32. It's all about the phrasing, m'dear. n/t

[iverglas]

37. that's one theory

Not supported by the facts, but there you go.

[iverglas]

54. uh oh

phrased it badly then, did we?

[SteveM]

49. After reading #6 below, perhaps you can answer this:

Wouldn't the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Center give their first-borns up for laws like Norway's? Surel. You know they would. They've been advocating similar stuff for the U.S. for years.

[iverglas]

55. now you try this one

Have you stopped beating your purple polka-dotted six-legged dog yet?

[SteveM]

56. When you get past purple people eaters, try this:

Wouldn't you like Norway-type laws in the U.S.?

[iverglas]

57. "like"?

Wouldn't you like Norway-type laws in the U.S.?

Laws in the US on the Norwegian model might be nice, certainly. There would undoubtedly be some positive impact in Canada, since acquisition of firearms for gun-running would be at least more difficult, so I'd have to say I'd like them. Not as much as I'd like a ban on handgun possession, but hey, some is better than none.

[SteveM]

58. I get it: "Norwegian [laws] might be nice." But would they be effective?

[iverglas]

21. "oh, that's right ... "

... he lives in a country where they have stripped away his right to defend himself. Fortunately, those of us living in the United States still have that right (in most places).

That's why he didn't shoot at Breivik, is it?

Have you read somewhere that Pracon wanted to have a gun on his person at the camp and was prohibited from doing so by the law?

(I won't dignify your "stripped away his right to defend himself" by responding to it as if it meant something.)

Do you know for a fact that if the law had not prohibited the carrying of firearms, he would have been carrying one?

I don't think you have read that, and I don't think you know that.

My own strong suspicion is that he did not want to have a gun on his person, and he would not have been carrying a gun if the law had not prohibited it.

Same as the vast majority of people in the US, even, and the huge overwhelming majority of people in Norway, Canada, and every other comparable country in the world.

So unless you propose that individuals be compelled by law to carry firearms around with them, what are you contributing to this conversation?

That one's easy.

Nothing.

[chibajoe]

29. Well, since he didn't have a choice, I guess we'll never know, will we?

Your suspicion carries about as much weight as my suspicion - jack squat.

[iverglas]

34. well, you could read what he has said

One really would think that if he were bitterly angry about having been prohibited from having a firearm on his person so he could have stopped the murders (no guarantee of that anyway, of course), he'd be saying something to that effect.

Anything?

[Speck Tater]

7. As the human race goes crazy around you, the best way to stay safe is...

just don't be where lots of people congregate. A crazed gunman or terrorist bomber is not going to go out int eh country to find that one guy sitting by himself in his living room to blow up. He looks for place where he can shoot or blow up a lot of people at the same time.

Same goes for riots and oppressive police behavior. Riots happen where lots of people are crowded together in a small space. The "police state" actions like rubber bullets and water cannons and mass arrests don't happen out in the middle of the desert somewhere, they happen where all the people are.

If you want to avoid trouble, stay away from the places where trouble likes to hang out. There are maybe three or four people living in a one mile radius of my house. I never lose a minutes sleep worrying about terrorists or riots or gangs of police gone wild. Living and working downtown is like walking around with a target painted on your back.

By my way of thinking hiding from trouble beats shooting back any day.

[RSillsbee]

8. Works for me NT

[Cirque du So-What]

9. Congratulations on contributing the first on-topic post in this thread

Thus far, every other contribution cannot see past the need for returning fire. I realize that some insist upon keeping their piece within reach, even while taking a bath, but not everyone is inclined to play quick-draw artist 24/7/365. I believe it's worthwhile to consider the possibility (a stretch for some, to be sure) that they will be caught unarmed in a situation where firearms are being discharged indiscriminately at random human targets. The ruffy-tuffy-wuffy shoot-'em-back stance doesn't mean diddly if you're unarmed, yunno.

As for your strategy, there's a lot of merit to it, although I don't live in an area quite so rural as you. Personally, I avoid trouble by staying out of bars. I know, some insist that you meet interesting people in bars, but you can encounter interesting people in any number of venues besides bars. Some have been jumping for joy at the prospect of concealed-carrying into bars, and that doesn't make me feel any safer. Yeah, criminals can CC without anyone being the wiser, but knowing that untold numbers are now packing in bars is a deal-breaker for me. For all the concern over self-preservation as an excuse for packing, the decision to then carry into a drinking establishment is the apex of hypocrisy. If you're so concerned about safety, why place yourself in a business that already has a reputation for random violence?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Agree, at least in part :)

Since: "Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation." I have to say the most important thing to do in the way of self-defense is to contemplate the problem. Learning what to do most situations starts with identifying those situations.

Realizing, in any self-defense situation, that your primary weapon is your ability to think and keep your cool cannot be over emphasized.

...However...


Talking down to those that CC as if they are foolish children will do nothing to forward your point of view.

[Cirque du So-What]

14. By the same token...

those who attempt to ramrod their opinions on unrestricted purchase or carry of firearms aren't doing their cause any favors either. Like the question of which came first - the chicken or the egg - it's hard to tell who started the condescension & other forms of snark in the first place. Given the nature of the subject, it's not likely that either side wants to be the first to blink.

I couldn't agree more with the 'commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation' statement, but that message gets lost in the sauce 'round here. It's hard to conduct intelligent discourse on the subject when the 'default' stance is to call me an 'authoritarian,' an 'anti,' or something even worse. I also get the impression that even the 'regulars' would get shouted down if they advocated the 'avoidance, deterrence & de-escalation' commonsense advice. Far more gratifying to indulge in fantasies of bloody gunfire, it appears.

[X_Digger]

16. Who are these people who are advocating 'unrestricted purchase or carry of firearms'?

I can't decide whether that's more of a straw man or a false dichotomy (as the assumed position of someone who doesn't agree with whatever additional restriction is being proposed today.)

I also get the impression that even the 'regulars' would get shouted down if they advocated the 'avoidance, deterrence & de-escalation' commonsense advice.

Then you're not paying attention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=258848

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=294965

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=322362#322433

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=285789

[iverglas]

26. that's pretty funny

Your first link is to a post by SSeven dated 2009:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=258848



Oops.


Your second link is to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=294965



Now there's some fine, civil discourse. What exactly are you providing examples of, now?


Your third link is to a post by yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=322362#322433

that seems to be about how wise you are, to which no one replied.


And the fourth link is to a post by someone with a grand total of 18 posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=285789

offering his personal wisdom about carrying firearms.


Now will you link us to, oh, four of the many hundred posts in this forum calling for thieves and trespassers to be shot on sight, and laws that allow it?

[X_Digger]

27. Perhaps you missed the post I was responding to?

shouted down if they advocated the 'avoidance, deterrence & de-escalation' commonsense advice.

Somehow I fail to see the 'shouting down' of anyone for practicing 'avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation'.

You do realize that would have been a valid response to the claim, yes? Not your apparent demagoguery.

I have to admit, though, I did find a post with an Oleg Volk image, just for you.

One of the topics that frequently come up with regulars is 'situational awareness' -- making eye contact with people, paying attention to your surroundings, etc. Why? Because this breaks out of the 'easy pickings' victim profile- deterring criminals.

There have also been threads by regulars about how their behavior has changed since they started to carry. They avoid confrontation whenever possible, ignoring assholes in traffic or slights / insults. In some of those same threads, they talk about walking away from insults, therefore de-escalating a potentially violent situation.

Feel free to find someone being 'shouted down' for advocating the above.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. "...it's hard to tell who started the condescension & other forms of snark..."

I will go a step further and say that figuring out "who started the snark, condescension..." no longer matters and additionally undermines progress in the discussion. While the "de-escalation" message may lost AROUND HERE it's important that it not just get lost. My general take is that those having an exchange at all are doing so with interest and that, if they hold a radical position, they won't be changing that position quickly or easily.

There is a responsibility spectrum to be observed among those who own/carry. Holding up those at the idiotic and irresponsible end (while a great minority) does a disservice to those along most of the rest of the spectrum.

Perhaps we all watch too many movies. While uninstructive, they are a lot of fun. :) Don't take those remarks too seriously.

[iverglas]

25. this is the first date

that a google search finds me on which I posted on firearms issues at DU.

You might find this post interesting, on the subject you raise:

Like the question of which came first - the chicken or the egg - it's hard to tell who started the condescension & other forms of snark in the first place. Given the nature of the subject, it's not likely that either side wants to be the first to blink.

I actually made Herculean efforts for a long time ...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID24/1638.html

iverglas
Jun-09-03, 11:38 AM (ET)
1. whew, greased lightning

... What I did see, I've remarked on there -- in http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2060&forum=DCForumID32">this thread, the subject of *this* thread, in my post "please, I want to know". It was about this comment to the gun control advocate:

So ... you're saying we should disarm the police?"

Need I say? The poster being spoken to had not said any such thing, or anything that implied it, or suggested that s/he thought it.

I do. I really really want to know why this dishonest and destructive tactic is tolerated so benignly around here, and of course why anyone around here would engage in it ever, let alone as continually as a few I know do.

I've been wanting this discussion for a while. The link someone posted a few days ago (cited in my post in that thread -- http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.the.new.jargon.html) is an excellent resource for understanding the issue and the objections to these tactics. And I can provide dozens of examples of how this deceit and incivility is practised around here, for anyone interested. Here, I go beyond the thread that prompted this post, to the generalized problem.

Here's some of the commentary about what I'm talking about, from that site:

I am talking here about people who are emotionally abusive, and who have obviously invested effort in learning a whole technology of emotional abuse that they are deploying in a systematic way for (what they regard as) political purposes. I am talking about people who express themselves in snide, sarcastic, scornful tones, who express themselves in innuendoes, who invest incredible effort in provoking an intemperate response so that they can portray themselves as victims, and who engage in complicatedly indirect forms of rhetoric that deniably presuppose things that are false.

(That's it -- that is what I am talking about. The MISREPRESENTATION so cleverly and carefully framed that no one can call it "lie", although lie it absolutely is.)

Let us consider a few examples of the phenomena I am talking about. This message was in response to my essay on the hate mail I've been getting:

so, let's see. If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending "hate mail"? my god, what hypocracy, what insular thinking (and frnakly, I worry about using that last word)

My problem with a passage like this, I repeat, is not exactly that it is nasty, but that it is nasty in a stereotyped and cultivated way. It is part of a technology of nastiness. Let's consider how it works. Start with the first sentence. In the jargon, expressions like "let me see if I've got this straight" are used to preface a distorted paraphrase of an opponent's words. This is a matter of routine; it's part of what a linguist would call the "phasal lexicon" of the new jargon. In fact, "so, let's see" does two kinds of work: it prefaces a distortion of what I said, and it pretends that the distortion is what I said. It twists reason, and projects that twisting onto me. I, of course, never said that everyone who disagrees with me is sending hate mail. Never said it, never meant it, never implied it, never presupposed it, never thought it.

And this is not just any distortion. It's a type that is also very common in the new jargon: someone sends me hate mail that expresses disagreement with my views, and so rather than acknowledge the hateful elements of that mail, my correspondent here pretends that I have associated all disagreement with hate. Underneath, in other words, it's a matter of associationism. Associationism deletes all of logical connections among ideas, and instead works to create certain strategically chosen associations among concepts, and to break others. The first step, very often, is to project the very fact of engaging in associationism into one's opponent: by writing about messages of disagreement that were hateful, it is said, "they" are the ones who associated disagreement with hate.

Notice, too, the rhetorical question ("If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending 'hate mail'?"). This is also common. It's a way of making an obviously false assertion -- in this case, the assertion that I have said that everyone who disagrees with me has ispo facto sent hate mail -- without admitting to it. Then the "my god", etc, which assumes an answer to the rhetorical question, as if the rhetorical question's proffered paraphrase were something that I said. Then, of course, the flood of nasty language.

Surely it all sounds all too familiar.

And eight years on ... doesn't it just?

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Glad to see the postmodernist flame is being kept alive.

Nothing persuades like endless digression on the minutiae of meaning, amirite?

[SteveM]

53. It's all in how you phrase it.

[DWC]

59. Urrite. n/t

[SteveM]

52. Goodness, I completely agree with you on:

"The ruffy-tuffy-wuffy shoot-'em-back stance doesn't mean diddly if you're unarmed, yunno."

I should think so. 'Folks here been saying that for years. Thanks.

[Abin Sur]

10. Rural vs. city living

I don't live in as rural an area as you, but I do live in an affluent mountain community of 9,000. Part of my decision to live here is an awareness of relative crime rates here (1 violent crime per 1,000 residents per year) vs. the nearby city of Denver (8 violent crimes per 1,000 residents per year).

You couldn't pay me to live in a large city.

(well, I suppose you could...but it would take a lot)

[spin]

24. Welcome to DU. (n/t)

[Abin Sur]

30. Thanks!

[Kennah]

18. "The number of public shootout is increasing at an alarming rate"

And the data behind this assertion would be what? He done seen it on the Internet?

The article seems rather poorly written, although the advice is credited as coming from WikiHow. That and 50 cents ...

Cover isn't intended to conceal. It's intended to protect you so that you can shoot back.

911 is an American thing. 911 is not global. Who is the audience the writer is targeting?

I've never heard of hero training. Should I contact the Justice League to find out about it? Maybe the author was being condescending towards those of us who's attended Firearms Academy of Seattle, LFI, etc.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Yeah, I'm going to take advice from a list that contains things that got people killed, and 'text'

speak.

Even the part the author wrote, before the wikihow site is awful, but look at the list he quoted.

7. Play Dead : If the number of victims is large, the shooter might over look people are lying flat on the floor, considering them dead. Remain quiet and still, trying to hold your breath.

Wonderful. Except of course, the shooter methodically walked around and shot most people in the head, to make sure they were really dead. The subject of the OP was missed, unintentionally by the shooter. Not a very good defense mechanism to rely upon the competence of your attacker.