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

OC-Trainer said:

There's always going to be soft targets. Airports, stadiums, concert arenas, etc. That is never going to change. Terrorists hit those locations because they contain large groups of people, not because people are unarmed. Airports have armed security, as do stadiums, and not to mention law enforcement presence. Again, the types of attacks they are using in these locations, backpack pressure cooker bombs, for example (Manchester 2017), a gun won't stop.

Here we are, 6 pages deep into this thread and no one has been able to show any compelling evidence that suggests that an armed civilian would have any significant impact on these threats (the crux of this thread). The information that has been posted - the FBI study, the excellent links provided by Double Naught Spy - highlight that this is way more complex than just "packing heat." The sooner we realize this, the better.

Click to expand...

when these terrorists blow up politicians who have the US in endless wars then I will believe in the attacks

Capitol Hill Police are credited with stopping a shooter who opened up on a GOP baseball practice this morning. Rand Paul was just on CNN giving them credit for stopping the MASS shooter, because "nobody else here had a gun."

So you have a public (YMCA) outside setting and nobody was armed other than the bad guy and the police/security detail for the event. FYI, it still took something like 10 minutes for the shooter to be stopped by the trained professionals.

By the way, Rand Paul also commented that t only way many of them were saved was by running and hiding.

He also said if fire wasn't being returned, the shooter could have advanced and slaughtered them all.

Mebbe some of those reps or aides shoulda been carrying...

Well, if you are unarmed, running and hiding is about all you have left. That didn't work out for a few during the Columbine shooting for example.

And this running and hiding is not going to help if a dozen or so jihadis pick a target somewhere and are organised with say half of them positioned to engage responders when they arrive. Or they start targeting school buses etc.

Derek Zeanah said:

So what is your solution to the problem?

Click to expand...

Imams say that if the remnants of suicide bombers are fed to pigs, their theological after life aspirations won't be achieved.

barnbwt said:

He also said if fire wasn't being returned, the shooter could have advanced and slaughtered them all.

Click to expand...

That would be fire by trained professionals who were there for the sole task of providing protection for the GOP players.

barnbwt said:

Mebbe some of those reps or aides shoulda been carrying...

Click to expand...

You mean the vehemently pro-gun people????

From the recent shooting:

"The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover. We were inside the backstop and if we didn’t have that cover by a brave person who stood up and took a shot themselves, we would not have gotten out of there and every one of us would have been hit — every single one of us. He was coming around the fence line and he was looking for all of us who had found cover in different spots. But if we didn’t have return fire right there, he would have come up to each one of us and shot us point-blank.”

Click to expand...

-- Congressman Mike Bishop, survivor of Alexandria GOP shooting

stoky said:

Imams say that if the remnants of suicide bombers are fed to pigs, their theological after life aspirations won't be achieved.

Click to expand...

I have often wondered what effect this would have is someone started doing this. I'm not advocating desecrating (and its gross to boot) but the thought that dying foe the jihad WONT get you to heaven, what would that do to recruiting efforts?

I do realize that often suicide bombers are essencially forced at gunpoint to do it and this would have no affect for these unfortunate souls

Carrying? In Washington D.C.? D.C. has been dragging its feet to comply with Heller for residents to own in their homes. Non residents carrying for S-D would be out of the question in D.C. (I can remember that D.C. police busted Ted Kennedy's bodyguard.)

Sounds like it was a good thing a good guy was armed and returned fire.

It's truly amazing how many of you missed and/or chose to ignore the point Double Naught was making.

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...

Where the Brits are "coming from" is total passivity.

1. Disarm the public.
2. Disarm most of the police.
3. Discourage self-defense.
4. Bring in thousands of people whose ideology is UTTERLY inimical to Western liberal democracy, and VOCALLY so.
5. Obfuscate the ideological motivations of the perpetrators and ruthlessly suppress those who clearly identify those motivations, while allowing the proponents of oppression, slavery and murder free rein..

It's a punch list for auto-genocide by proxy. The Brits are just farther back in the line for the execution chamber than the Swedes and the French.

Not only is "You don't need a gun, the police will protect you" a monstrous lie, it's an ESPECIALLY monstrous lie when the police can't even protect THEMSELVES because they don't have guns.

MEHavey said:

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

Click to expand...

To the anti-gun cult, that's absolutely intolerable.

They want your ONLY "defense" to be pure, dumb luck.

To them, if it happens to you, you had it coming. That goes for your three year old as much as for you.

stoky said:

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

Click to expand...

In a crowd, unlikely that you would be able to create a stable stance to shoot from, people panicking, and IMO, "most" citizens would be suffering tunnel vision and other adrenaline-fueled physical stresses, to achieve that kind of accuracy...chances of shooting innocent bystanders are great. If one chooses to intercede, the consequences could be grave even if you are successful. (Speaking to the general 'you' here)

OC-Trainer said:

That other skills, tools, and methods would be much more valuable.

Click to expand...

Which ones?

My suggestion for (partial) prevention is for the UK to hand out bulletproof vests to its citizens. Let them start using preventative measures. It seems that this is a trend they need to take seriously. (And I am somewhat serious about my suggestion).

Because it would be interesting to see how terrorists adapted. The vests would protect from knives, bullets, bomb shrapnel, leaving necks and heads a smaller but available target. They might give people more time to run, to fight back, etc. all good things but that's the thing about terrorists...they have no rules and they adapt.

So we need to adapt too and I think wearing vests could become all the new 'rage' in the UK.

Will personal firearms stop terrorists? Only in the same sense that carrying firearms stops crime. Only in the same sense that carrying a firearm stops mass shootings. The answer is no...guns arent magic. They can only protect us in the moment.

*If* the situation arises, and *if* the circumstances enable it (such as you are NOT the first victim ambushed/attacked), and *if* you are armed at the time, you do indeed have the potential ability to make a difference. Save your own life, save others.

It means right time/right place...and I think that's why we all carry (if that is the case)....to be prepared in that scenario. So sure, a firearm can definitely make a difference. In individual situations. Seems like justification to me.

I also believe we should be alot more prepared and observant than just relying on carrying a gun but I think most here realize that.

(read the whole thread)

9MMare said:

In a crowd, unlikely that you would be able to create a stable stance to shoot from, people panicking, and IMO, "most" citizens would be suffering tunnel vision and other adrenaline-fueled physical stresses, to achieve that kind of accuracy...chances of shooting innocent bystanders are great. If one chooses to intercede, the consequences could be grave even if you are successful. (Speaking to the general 'you' here)

Click to expand...

I have to respectfully, partially, disagree. In a crowd, you may not know who is armed. But that shooter may pull his weapon right in front of you with his back turned to you. You have a sidearm, know you are not a target, have the element of surprise, and could put that person down in short order and prevent one of those mass shootings. Of course it may not go that way. But it's just as likely that it could. I'll prepare for the chance that I could affect the outcome, before I'll prepare to be a sheep at the slaughter.

Maybe I'm different. But my family doesn't run. We haven't since WWII when my grandfather carried boxes and boxes of ammunition by hand under heavy fire to soldiers pinned down over 2 miles away. Killed several Japanese along the way. Made several trips. I could state many examples from my father, brother, and myself. But some will just claim I'm chest thumping and a armchair wannabe. And that's fine by me. Some will claim that the brave die everyday. That's true. It's a risk and a choice.

And as for the 1 of 160 mass shooting stopped by an armed citizen, they also are not taking into account how many rounds were fired BY THE ASSAILANT that MISSED. It's only based on casualties. So if they guy is a terrible shot, like the guy today, it doesn't count. Gold standard or not, it's irrelevant. Because that statistic does NOT predict how the next mass shooting will be stopped.

9MMare said:

Which ones?

Click to expand...

I like your suggestions, 9MMare and what you pointed out about ambushes.

Here's some of what has worked in other places:

I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers, but it depends on the type of threat. Some types of attacks I honestly don't think can be stopped, at least not without a Herculean effort, and even then it's iffy at best for survival.

For example: Trying to stop or at least minimize the casualties from say, a backpack bomb (like the Manchester attack and Boston Marathon), would require check points w/ bag searches, surveillance teams and trained, armed guards w/dogs, the whole nine. The check points would have to be far enough away from the venue, too. A recent example of this has happened, and is happening at the Disney Parks. They also have an undercover terrorist response team.

On the personal skill set front, it begins and ends with situational awareness. Especially at large, public venues. The concerts, ball games, etc. I have to be honest, other than the ability to now call 911 from anywhere, I absolutely loathe cell phones. If we as a society can get our heads out of these things, it would go a long way in spotting suspicious behavior and help recognize other things that look out of the ordinary. You can't lose the fight you're not in -avoidance-evasion-escape-fight. In that order for me.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg and it's super complex subject, to be sure.

OC-Trainer said:

It's truly amazing how many of you missed and/or chose to ignore the point Double Naught was making.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's your point that I'm missing. Is your point simply that an armed citizenry will have no impact on terror attacks and therefore there is no reason to have armed citizenry? Should a citizenry be disarmed because they have no impact on terror attacks and would only confuse the authorities responding to the incident?

Or are you implying that the citizenry is allowed to be armed in defense against criminals but not in defense against terrorists? Do you think disarming the citizenry because they are ineffective against terror attacks is a better solution than allowing the citizenry to arm themselves?

MistWolf said:

Actually, it's your point that I'm missing. Is your point simply that an armed citizenry will have no impact on terror attacks and therefore there is no reason to have armed citizenry? Should a citizenry be disarmed because they have no impact on terror attacks and would only confuse the authorities responding to the incident?

Or are you implying that the citizenry is allowed to be armed in defense against criminals but not in defense against terrorists? Do you think disarming the citizenry because they are ineffective against terror attacks is a better solution than allowing the citizenry to arm themselves?

Click to expand...

Did you read the whole thread? I've already expressed my point a few times now.

Can you articulate Double Naught's point above? If you can do that, then we can talk...

Checkpoints for baggage and body searches are futile. Jihadi simply targets the crowd waiting in line or switches to knives, guns and trucks again or other attack somewhere else. Other methods are numerous; last year or so I recall a school bus being firebombed in India, and about 10 jihadis murdered a large number of kids in a school bus in with guns in Egypt recently.

The Brit police in this case are simply pre-empting the idea of people defending themselves at all, and predictably they make no mention of the varieties of other attacks that have occurred or will come.

Israel has some level of saturation of people carrying openly and concealed, long guns all over the place. It has been effective in stopping a number of attacks, and I do not hear of their uniformed police moaning about it either.

RPZ said:

Checkpoints for baggage and body search's are futile. Jihadi simply targets the crowd waiting in line.

Click to expand...

In your (incorrect) opinion. Those in the know, think differently.

That didn't work out for a few during the Columbine shooting for example

Click to expand...

Oh, and while you're here, about that Columbine comment...

You do realize that there was and armed guard there, right? Cop? With a gun? Kind of destroys the whole gun free zone argument you keep trying to push, doesn't it?

BigBore44 said:

I have to respectfully, partially, disagree. In a crowd, you may not know who is armed. But that shooter may pull his weapon right in front of you with his back turned to you. You have a sidearm, know you are not a target, have the element of surprise, and could put that person down in short order and prevent one of those mass shootings. Of course it may not go that way. But it's just as likely that it could. I'll prepare for the chance that I could affect the outcome, before I'll prepare to be a sheep at the slaughter.

Maybe I'm different. But my family doesn't run. We haven't since WWII when my grandfather carried boxes and boxes of ammunition by hand under heavy fire to soldiers pinned down over 2 miles away. Killed several Japanese along the way. Made several trips. I could state many examples from my father, brother, and myself. But some will just claim I'm chest thumping and a armchair wannabe. And that's fine by me. Some will claim that the brave die everyday. That's true. It's a risk and a choice.

And as for the 1 of 160 mass shooting stopped by an armed citizen, they also are not taking into account how many rounds were fired BY THE ASSAILANT that MISSED. It's only based on casualties. So if they guy is a terrible shot, like the guy today, it doesn't count. Gold standard or not, it's irrelevant. Because that statistic does NOT predict how the next mass shooting will be stopped.

Click to expand...

That's fine, I said 'unlikely,' not impossible. Personally, in that situation, I wouldnt even trust a cop not to miss a couple of shots even if their barrel was against the terrorist's head. The mass movement and physical stresses of the moment, not to mention the fact that the direct hit will move the terrorist's head and either you'd need to stop instantly or adjust instantly with your next shot.

Yeah, I wouldnt be happy assuming no incidental injuries there but at the same time it doesnt mean I wouldnt try it. I just believe I have a pretty realistic view of the average citizen's abilities.

As for your personal moral stance...that's very nice.