Police chief squashes idea that gun owners might fight terrorists [Britain]

Our message to the public is a simple one: to run, to hide and to tell.”

Click to expand...

And to die.

Drink your tea and keep a stiff upper lip and die like lambs at the slaughter!

Hmm, it is funny how many people who do run and hide that survive. We often forget about all these people that were present at such events, didn't fight back at all, and are often ones telling us the stories of what happened.

I am not saying that it is my preferred approach, just pointing out that it is a strategy that has merit, particularly for those unable or unprepared to fight.

As for armed people stopping terrorists, or just crime in particular, you still have to keep in mind that that vast majority of gun owners, even those with carry permits or constitutional carry, are NOT carrying out in public at any given time.

Double Naught Spy said:

Hmm, it is funny how many people who do run and hide that survive. We often forget about all these people that were present at such events, didn't fight back at all, and are often ones telling us the stories of what happened.

I am not saying that it is my preferred approach, just pointing out that it is a strategy that has merit, particularly for those unable or unprepared to fight.

As for armed people stopping terrorists, or just crime in particular, you still have to keep in mind that that vast majority of gun owners, even those with carry permits or constitutional carry, are NOT carrying out in public at any given time.

Click to expand...

There may be many situations in which one might first want to hide/escape and not draw fire, which could hit loved ones with you. But the disarmed cannot return fire no matter if they actually are in a situation where they cannot run or hide.
Only the armed have the choice. It is up to us to use our brains....UNDER FIRE.

Let's be honest - history has shown (in the US, at least) that the armed, non LEO/military citizen, is almost always a non-factor in terrorist attacks and mass shootings (FBI definition).

The situation is Britain is not comparable to that in the U.S. There is no gun culture to speak of, and the vast majority of people would not know what to do with guns even if they had them. Even most of the police are not armed.

It took many, many years for things to arrive at this point.

I think it comes down to the type of person you are. Some run. Some will use force only protect themselves. And some have the courage to fight to protect others. All have merit. But if everyone had not only the knowledge how to fight, but also the courage to stand and fight and say "not in my town you don't" it would make a difference. But that is simply a pipe dream. Because not everyone has those attributes.

I think at least one reason the attacks keep happening is because people are afraid to say something they see for fear of being viewed as a racist or anti-Muslim. Another reason is people are so wrapped up in their own lives that they don't pay attention. And a third is that law enforcement at all levels has become politicized. How many terrorists have been investigated and then nothing done. How many left Britain to go fight with ISIS then returned to Britain and they don't even know where they are? Incompetence, apathy (obviously) and politics. And the citizens are reaping the rewards of their government's "Inclusive Utopia".

[QUOTE=" And the citizens are reaping the rewards of their government's "Inclusive Utopia".[/QUOTE]

Yes they are but it is the government they voted for. No one else to blame except themselves and we have the same problem here in our country.

"..... Our message to the public is a simple one: to run, to hide and to tell.”

That is where the global elites want us in this country too.

Double Naught Spy said:

As for armed people stopping terrorists, or just crime in particular, you still have to keep in mind that that vast majority of gun owners, even those with carry permits or constitutional carry, are NOT carrying out in public at any given time.

Click to expand...

And this needs to change.

OC-Trainer said:

Let's be honest - history has shown (in the US, at least) that the armed, non LEO/military citizen, is almost always a non-factor in terrorist attacks and mass shootings (FBI definition).

Click to expand...

Only because there are not enough of them around.

RPZ said:

Only because there are not enough of them around.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

How do you explain what happened in Dallas last summer, then. There were literally guns everywhere. ARs. pistols, Open carry, concealed carry you name it. The CCW citizen made no difference in the outcome of those attacks. In fact, it made it harder for the police, not easier.

Double Naught Spy said:

Hmm, it is funny how many people who do run and hide that survive. We often forget about all these people that were present at such events, didn't fight back at all, and are often ones telling us the stories of what happened.

I am not saying that it is my preferred approach, just pointing out that it is a strategy that has merit, particularly for those unable or unprepared to fight.

As for armed people stopping terrorists, or just crime in particular, you still have to keep in mind that that vast majority of gun owners, even those with carry permits or constitutional carry, are NOT carrying out in public at any given time.

Click to expand...

This is called the Antelope Strategy -- the crock at the water hole will get an antelope, but a lot more will escape.

The problem with this strategy is that it doesn't solve the crock problem and the antelope that escapes today may not escape tomorrow.

There are those who believe that the government should be responsible for everything it's citizens, who they view as subjects, need, including their protection. There are others who recognize that while the police are best equipped to handle these types of situations, they can not be everywhere and a great deal of damage can be inflicted on a person until help arrives. In the absence of a police officer the responsibility for a person's safety and/or life belongs to that person.

OC-Trainer said:

Nonsense.

How do you explain what happened in Dallas last summer, then. There were literally guns everywhere. ARs. pistols, Open carry, concealed carry you name it. The CCW citizen made no difference in the outcome of those attacks. In fact, it made it harder for the police, not easier.

Click to expand...

You say nonsense; how many in Dallas per one hundred thousand carry? I will counter with nonsense; it's about saturation. Despite the freedom to do so in some states only a small percentage of people actually do. The carrying of rifles - the most viable and obvious counter to such killers - is discouraged.

And as far as the the subject of police are concerned, we do not exist for the benefit of public servants. The only affect on police agencies that a saturated armed public would have is to make them redundant until after the fact. And from a legal obligation standpoint and function, that is where they are now anyway.

OC-Trainer said:

Let's be honest - history has shown (in the US, at least) that the armed, non LEO/military citizen, is almost always a non-factor in terrorist attacks and mass shootings (FBI definition).

Click to expand...

history has shown us that armed LEO's / military and the trillions spent on the police spying state are a non factor in shooting and terrorist attacks including 9-11

RPZ said:

You say nonsense; how many in Dallas per one hundred thousand carry? I will counter with nonsense; it's about saturation. Despite the freedom to do so in some states only a small percentage of people actually do. The carrying of rifles - the most viable and obvious counter to such killers - is discouraged.

And as far as the the subject of police are concerned, we do not exist for the benefit of public servants. The only affect on police agencies that a saturated armed public would have is to make them redundant until after the fact. And from a legal obligation standpoint and function, that is where they are now anyway.

Click to expand...

if you look at the pension / benefit package our public "servants" get you will see we exist for their benefit

RPZ said:

You say nonsense; how many in Dallas per one hundred thousand carry?

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the Dallas attacks in the summer of 2016? There were armed civilians everywhere that day. A robot stopped the threat.

How are firearms going to stop a suicide bomber with a vest and dead man switch? Or a pressure cooker bomb in a a backpack?

This is where the Brits (I think) are coming from. It is overly simplistic to say "arm the subjects."

OC-Trainer said:

What does that have to do with the Dallas attacks in the summer of 2017? There were armed civilians everywhere that day. A robot stopped the threat.

How are firearms going to stop a suicide bomber with a vest and dead man switch? Or a pressure cooker bomb in a a backpack?

This is where the Brits (I think) are coming from. It is overly simplistic to say "arm the subjects."

Click to expand...

I remember Charles Whitman the tower sniper was fired on by guys that had rifles hanging in their pickups and gave the cops a chance to get to the building and up the stairs. granted you cant stop a bomber.

OC-Trainer said:

What does that have to do with the Dallas attacks in the summer of 2017? There were armed civilians everywhere that day. A robot stopped the threat.

How are firearms going to stop a suicide bomber with a vest and dead man switch? Or a pressure cooker bomb in a a backpack?

This is where the Brits (I think) are coming from. It is overly simplistic to say "arm the subjects."

Click to expand...

No, a firearm is not going to stop a bomber with a dead man's trigger, or any other bomb for that matter. But as far as random shootings and stabbings, yes it would certainly have an effect. And Dallas was just one highly publicized shooting.

So how many per capita actually carry a pistol - concealed or openly - or rifle in states where it is legal to do so?

salt&battery said:

I remember Charles Whitman the tower sniper was fired on by guys that had rifles hanging in their pickups and gave the cops a chance to get to the building and up the stairs. granted you cant stop a bomber.

Click to expand...

And IIRC kept him busy, and one or more accompanied the responding PO in for the kill.

OC-Trainer said:

This is where the Brits (I think) are coming from. It is overly simplistic to say "arm the subjects."

Click to expand...

A bit of an afterthought; in the Brit context, it would have to amount to recreating the Home Guard during WW2. They did not have any guns to give the newly created Home Guard and had to import donated guns from the country of ...guess where?

OC-Trainer said:

non LEO/military citizen, is almost always a non-factor

Click to expand...

"Almost' is not good enough.
I'd rather hold my own -- and my family's -- fate in my own hands.

OC-Trainer said:

Let's be honest - history has shown (in the US, at least) that the armed, non LEO/military citizen, is almost always a non-factor in terrorist attacks and mass shootings (FBI definition).

Click to expand...

True, but history has also shown that most of these events have happened in gun free zones.

History has also shown that none of them have ever happened to me.