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

Jack B. said:

Check out what this Police Sheriff says.

]

Click to expand...

Sorry there is no such thing as a police sheriff. There is a sheriff, or police. Police are appointed, the sheriff is elected by the people. The sheriff is the "chief" law enforcement agent in the county and can only be replaced by the governor of that state (yes there are a few that don't fit)

Sorry to nit pick....and yes I work at a sheriffs OFFICE....and it is an office....an elected office, it is not a department.

In Chicago an armed Uber driver stopped a mass shooting. In Oklahoma an executive in a factory stopped someone who was in the process of stabbing an employee. These are just 2 examples that immediately come to mind. Throw statistics out the window. They mean nothing to the people in Chicago and Oklahoma that are still alive due to the response of armed citizens. There will be attacks which armed citizens will be powerless to prevent. There will also be attacks which armed citizens can prevent. This isn't complicated. Being armed means you have the chance to defend yourself or others in attacks such as the ones I mentioned. Being unarmed makes that significantly more difficult.

He is a Police Chief in Britain...how long would he have a job if he advocated arming citizens?

Mk VII said:

“Under no circumstances would we want members of the public to arm themselves with firearms, not least because officers responding would not know who the offenders were, and quite obviously they would not have the time to ask. Our message to the public is a simple one: to run, to hide and to tell.”

Click to expand...

This is how socialists think. It is more convenient for government officials, in this case police, for members of the public to be running, bleeding or dead than trying to defend themselves.
The government will protect you from the terrorists that they knowingly let into the country.

While OC Trainer has a point to make, it's not one relevant to America. At all. And it ignores the point made by others - when an armed civilian is there, loss of life is less. Facing counterfire many do take their lives. The point of their action was to die in a hail of gunfire as a protest against being treated unequally.

Gunfire by others satisfies their prerequisite and they then turn the gun on themselves or detonate the bomb they are wearing.

It's no different than a home invasion - many worry about shooting thru the walls and hitting an innocent neighbor, the reality is the perp is already doing that. The better course of action is to return fire accurately and stop them - because it limits the amount you need to fire. Shooting at a terrorist may add to the initial number of rounds fired but WILL limit the overall risk to the public at large by stopping the incident sooner rather than later.

Considering the normally delinquent arrival of police to any shooting situation, I'd be quite a bit less worried about them not sorting out who is or isn't a shooter. FIGHT BACK and stop the shooting. Sort out your own defense and if necessary - as the "authority" from Britain so appallingly declares - get your self out of the killing zone before the cops kill you.

You will likely have much longer to do that after the last shot before they arrive. Considering how many departments teach officers to hang back, organize, assess, and wait for instruction from higher up - you have from ten to fifteen minutes up to hours later.

OR - as HAS happened in the past, you can watch as the shooter searches unimpeded making their way down the mallway or room by room killing innocents as they discover them.

Let's not toss aside the fact that these incidents occur where the lack of armed response is a factor, that terrorists or the mentally unbalanced deliberately choose locations where they have studied and know for a fact there is likely no armed people. Therefore adopting a tactic that doesn't work and cooperating with the terrorists/shooters plan of action has NO merit. We are much better off to respond with gunfire when we can ID the shooter and do so quickly.

Do not forget that there are over three million uses of guns in America already - where the perpetrator is stopped and run off by the display of a firearm and it's potential use. Are we saying we shouldn't carry at all? It's already being shown by one poster we don't need cops as they are a complete waste of time and money. That conclusion is indefensible and so is cowering and making no effort to protect yourself.

The part being left out of the "advice" is that when a British citizen is confronted after all their avoidance manuevering they are to fight back. Chairs, drinks, etc - whatever is at hand to be used at weapons to deter the perpetrators. It's completely false to say that Great Britain is advocating lying on the floor and accepting your fate - it's contrary to human nature and isn't going to happen in many situations anyway. Citizens are fighting back and not just taking it lying down.

We just happen to be enjoying the benefits of our population being armed as much as it is - terrorists and shooters find themselves limited to the "victim" zones established in metros by leftist politicians. Advocating their anti gun defense policy as the preferred response isn't how it's going to work out in America, especially given the preponderance of three million armed confrontations in areas were we DO carry vs the 160 cherry picked victim zone incidents carefully chosen by terrorists for maximum affect.

How about we start regaling each other with the stories of those thugs who choose cop bars to rob, and the immediate consequences of their stupidity? Do we assert and recommend that all those off duty cops simple run, hide and tell, cowering in the bathroom or broom closet waiting for SWAT to come clean things up? We also have 25 million prior service - over a million of recent note who carried locked and loaded daily for a year overseas. Hey, buds, stand down, some PD Chief in Britain and a poster here think you need to just do nothing when attacked by a knife wielding perp slashing at your spouse. OMG don't you even try to pull your CCW and respond by putting two in his lower pelvis.

We are aware of the facts - yes, we have been attacked by home grown white males who were trained directly or indirectly by our own military and who committed the majority of the recent terrorist attacks. However, the biggest incident on record are the 2,500 killed by MUSLIMS on 9/11, and the best response we had was to counter attack - which directly led to one plane not reaching it's target - the White House.

Are we saying they should have just cowered in their seat and done nothing? We already saw what happened when the others did. Not a lot of help, was it?

Neither is the advice from "authorities." No, if there is a something to say, it's that advocating cowardice reaps it's own reward.

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...

Couldn't be further from the truth actually. The reason the data doesn't support it is because they do not become mass shootings when someone stops them. I've read many articles of a citizen with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun that may have gone on to kill several people had he not been stopped (by force or by complying at gun point of a good guy).

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

Click to expand...

When good men have it beaten into them to just run and hide, how long before men aren't men at all?

Ryanxia said:

Couldn't be further from the truth actually. The reason the data doesn't support it is because they do not become mass shootings when someone stops them. I've read many articles of a citizen with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun that may have gone on to kill several people had he not been stopped (by force or by complying at gun point of a good guy).

Click to expand...

Apparently you are clairvoyant. You were inside the minds of the gunman, and knew their intentions. You cannot possibly say with any kind of certainty that a) they would have shot more or any people and that b) any kind of non-firearm intervention would not have stopped them.

So here is what I want you to articulate - Why, out of the 160 real-world, known and documented events, did only 1 of them end at the hands of an armed citizen? If what you are saying is accurate, then certainly the rather large sample size (remember these are rare events, so 160 documented cases is a lot), was the armed citizen a non-factor?

Don't bother with the "they all happened in gun free zones" hogwash, because it simply is not true.

And again, none of this will stop a suicide bomber like Manchester, Boston, like the type of attack in Nice.

I'll wait for your response...

@Tirod
I appreciate you thought out responses, but what does any of that have to do with this thread?

Please articulate how an armed Brit is going to stop the type of terrorist attacks occurring there.

OC-Trainer said:

Apparently you are clairvoyant. You were inside the minds of the gunman, and knew their intentions. You cannot possibly say with any kind of certainty that a) they would have shot more or any people and that b) any kind of non-firearm intervention would not have stopped them.

Click to expand...

I remember a guy who walked into a crowded mall I believe in Arizona wielding one or more firearms, a lawful citizen took him down just as he started shooting. While I agree its impossible to know what would have happened, you don't need to be clairvoyant to know that lives very well could have been lost. If you want to believe that an armed citizen with a gun would have little to no effect in any scenario on a mass shooting, feel free. Statistics may even support it, they don't lie. Remember, 5 out of 6 people agree, Russian Roulette is perfectly safe.

Oc, why do you count 1 out of 160 "events?" There were atleast 2 school shooting incidents were an armed adult stopped the gunman. Are you counting only terrorist events? Are you conflating school shootings with terrorist attacks?

Tommygunn said:

Oc, why do you count 1 out of 160 "events?" There were atleast 2 school shooting incidents were an armed adult stopped the gunman. Are you counting only terrorist events? Are you conflating school shootings with terrorist attacks?

Click to expand...

The FBI study from 2000-2013 is the gold standard for "Mass Shootings." That is what I am referring to. The terrorist attacks are a whole other can of worms.

Attached are some links to articles listing mass shootings that have been stopped by armed citizens. Some of the listings are duplicates. I understand that for every shooting stopped by someone there are many that are not stopped, but the point is that it does happen. Each time it happens someone goes home that may have otherwise been killed. For those throwing around statistics to make the claim that these incidents are statistically irrelevant, I'd ask you to think about whether it's relevant to the people who have been saved as well as their families.


http://gunsnfreedom.com/washington-post-lists-mass-shootings-stopped-by-armed-citizens/5839

http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=88

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatest...by-someone-wit?utm_term=.lhoLVwn0v#.nuzbvQzBk

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-stop-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.be56c21d26cd

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/05/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

OC-Trainer said:

The FBI study from 2000-2013 is the gold standard for "Mass Shootings." That is what I am referring to. The terrorist attacks are a whole other can of worms.

Click to expand...

Ok, then, I will reiterate; atleast 2 school shootings were stopped by citizens with guns. That's different than 1 of 160.

OC-Trainer said:

Apparently you are clairvoyant. You were inside the minds of the gunman, and knew their intentions. You cannot possibly say with any kind of certainty that a) they would have shot more or any people and that b) any kind of non-firearm intervention would not have stopped them.

So here is what I want you to articulate - Why, out of the 160 real-world, known and documented events, did only 1 of them end at the hands of an armed citizen? If what you are saying is accurate, then certainly the rather large sample size (remember these are rare events, so 160 documented cases is a lot), was the armed citizen a non-factor?

Don't bother with the "they all happened in gun free zones" hogwash, because it simply is not true.

And again, none of this will stop a suicide bomber like Manchester, Boston, like the type of attack in Nice.

I'll wait for your response...

Click to expand...

lol you will never change the minds of guys that carry who might think they are a cross between James Bond and Dirty Harry

OC-Trainer said:

@Tirod
I appreciate you thought out responses, but what does any of that have to do with this thread?

Please articulate how an armed Brit is going to stop the type of terrorist attacks occurring there.

Click to expand...

If you read the reports of the last attack in England, the attackers were stabbing people with knives while people were throwing things at them and fighting them off with whatever objects they could use. While a gun might not be helpful in every attack, it certainly would have been in this one. Put another way, if a terrorist is stabbing you and someone comes to your defense, do you want that defender armed with a chair or a gun? Is there any way to dispute that a gun would have stopped the attacks more quickly than a chair and people would have suffered fewer stab wounds?

salt&battery said:

lol you will never change the minds of guys that carry who might think they are a cross between James Bond and Dirty Harry

Click to expand...

LOL. I hear you. We already got the "I don't trust the FBI numbers" and the "stats don't matter" silliness. Yeah, let's just forget about those real life pesky facts...

But let me state something.,,Don't let my avatar, or the my posts about pepper spray fool you. I would absolutely do any and everything possible, to end/eliminate a threat to myself and or my family, if justifiable.

It just boggles my mind that some folks can't see the forest through the trees with this...

Tommygunn said:

Ok, then, I will reiterate; atleast 2 school shootings were stopped by citizens with guns. That's different than 1 of 160.

Click to expand...

Links?

TomJ said:

If you read the reports of the last attack in England, the attackers were stabbing people with knives while people were throwing things at them and fighting them off with whatever objects they could use. While a gun might not be helpful in every attack, it certainly would have been in this one.

Click to expand...

If you read the reports then you would know that they were wearing suicide vests. Are you saying you would shoot them with a vest on, blowing yourself and everyone else up in the vicinity?

The vest proved to be fakes, but, that wasn't known at the time, of course.

http://www.newsmax.com/World/Europe/EU-Britain-London-Bridge-Attack/2017/06/04/id/794068/
The most onerous surveillance state in the world didn't preclude the attack.
Depending on gubmint to "fix it" is like an alcoholic trying to detox by drinking themselves sober.

OC-Trainer said:

If you read the reports then you would know that they were wearing suicide vests. Are you saying you would shoot them with a vest on, blowing yourself and everyone else up in the vicinity?

Click to expand...

Experts (Brian Suits et. al.) recommend multiple shots to the face.

stoky said:

Experts (Brian Suits et. al.) recommend multiple shots to the face.

Click to expand...

If only, Stoky. Even if that were possible under tremendous stress with someone slashing a machete at you, they use special detonators that still activate the bomb once shot.

I think some people are overreacting to what the police chief said.
Self defense law class for handgun carry permit pointed out that police responding to a "man with a gun" call may see the defender as the "mwag" they are responding to. I got that point, and have thought out the consequences. I would still want to have the option to act in an attack if it means means saving my life or the life of another without adding to the chaos. In a chaotic situation running to safety and helping others reach safe havens is good choice to thwart the intents of criminal attackers.
Quote: "A Romanian baker hit one of the attackers over the head with a crate before giving shelter to 20 people inside Bread Ahead, a bakery in the market. One man fought the three attackers with his bare fists in the Black and Blue steakhouse, shouting "**** you, I'm Millwall", giving members of the public who were in the restaurant the opportunity to run away. He was stabbed eight times in the hands, chest and head. He underwent surgery at St Thomas' Hospital and was taken off the critical list on 4 June." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2017_London_attack
(BTW "Millwall" is a British Football team.)

denton said: Clackamas Mall was quickly stopped by an armed civilian, and the Arvada CO church shooting stopped quickly when a very determined lady headed straight for the shooter, firing as she advanced.
OC-Trainer: For what it's worth, Roberts killed himself, as did Murray.

Since those mass shooters commited suicide after being interrupted by an armed civilian, civilians should not think about being armed nor intervening?
The Sandy Hook murderer, the Columbine muderers (and others) committed suicide after being interrupted by armed police.
I would not count on mass attackers eventually killing themselves just because I know most are suicidal and their mass attack is itself a public suicidal gesture. If they kill themselves in response to an armed civilian or policeman showing up, there should always be a response and the earlier the better.

OC-Trainer said:

If only, Stoky. Even if that were possible under tremendous stress with someone slashing a machete at you, they use special detonators that still activate the bomb once shot.

Click to expand...

The only incident I can source where this actually happened as you state was in an airport in Istanbul where the attacker was shot and wounded .....by Police.
Airports are easy targets as citizens usually are completely defenseless.