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

[Bad Ninja]

The difference between a citizen responder and a LEO is training.
Not the weapon.

Should untrained citizens run hide report?
Probably.

But to assume all citizens are untrained is 100% false.

Some are as proficient as responding LEO.

The most proficient, well trained tactical shooter I know is a fireman.
And I shoot with several LEOs and a few Marines.

 

[old lady new shooter]

For what it's worth, Roberts killed himself, as did Murray.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting



http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/murray-matthew.htm

The security guard certainly played a factor in that, which is outstanding.



Can't really say either way. What we do know as fact, is that there were 160 Mass shooting incidents (as per FBI standard) from 2000-2013, and less than a handful were stopped by an armed civilian.

And terrorist attacks? How many have been stopped here in the US by an armed citizen? Not off duty cop or military...

Those present at the "less than a handful" are certainly happy to have survived. Kinda like the starfish story, you know, the kid walking along the beach picking up beached starfish and throwing them into the ocean, a passerby says something to the effect that the kid can't possibly make a difference that way, kid replies that he's making all the difference in the world to the ones he throws back.

 

[Prijador]

"how do you survive shooting a suicide bomber or use a firearm to stop a pressure cooking bomb? Or how are you going to stop a 20,000 lb truck (possibly filled with explosives)."

How is your "run and hide" strategy going to help you when you are trapped on a subway car, or in a bathroom when the attacker is shooting it up?
Different strategies, tactics, and tools should be used in different scenarios.

I've pointed out your logical fallacies - that is sufficient contribution.

Edit: some of us have jobs, and can't while away the day on the internets, OC-Trainer...

 

[OC-Trainer]

"how do you survive shooting a suicide bomber or use a firearm to stop a pressure cooking bomb? Or how are you going to stop a 20,000 lb truck (possibly filled with explosives)."

How is your "run and hide" strategy going to help you when you are trapped on a subway car, or in a bathroom when the attacker is shooting it up?

I've pointed out your logical fallacies - that is sufficient.

What a joke. Now you are putting words in my mouth. You didn't prove anything. Run along and come back with some facts, because you've got nothing of substance.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Check out what this Police Sheriff says.

I saw that yesterday and immediately thought of it on reading the opening post in this thread. Love this guy.

And BTW he makes clear (he has two videos up on this topic, watch both) that while police can do the best job of taking out a terrorist, citizens should do what they can until police arrive.

In the recent attack in England, 8 minutes elapsed between the time police were called and the moment they took out the terrorists.. excellent response time, but 8 minutes is long enough for a lot of people to be killed.

 

[old lady new shooter]

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).

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

Beaten into them as well that "Toxic Masculinity" has to be abolished. Pajama Boy is the new ideal, along with the guys wearing the lace outfits.

 

[old lady new shooter]

To follow up on Tom's point, the most likely attack I'd expect to see in Europe is someone driving into a crowd, then exiting his vehicle carrying a butcher knife. That seems the sort of scenario where I'd rather be armed than not...

Yes, that's the latest trend. Copied from the Palestinians.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

So since you have it all figured out, how do you survive shooting a suicide bomber or use a firearm to stop a pressure cooking bomb? Or how are you going to stop a 20,000 lb truck (possibly filled with explosives) with your 1911, Glock, or CCW? The greatest minds in the world can't figure it out, but Mr. Prijador on THR has the solution. Add something of substance to the thread. Share it with us....

So now we're getting down to it. Or at least the "it" I'm interested in -- the core of your argument. To answer each point:

• 20,000 lb truck: you put rounds in the windshield in the hope of incapacitating the driver. He's trying to do something with that vehicle that requires controlling the thing - stop his ability to do so and you remove his ability to cause harm. If the truck is wired to blow like it was in Oklahoma City, then what you're doing is forcing a decision to (possibly) die here without completing a suicidal mission, or trigger the explosives now at a (presumably) sub-optimal location where casualty count won't be maximized. Sucks for the shooter if he succeeds, but it's a win for society at large.
• Pressure cooker bomb: these things work like pipe bombs - you've got internal pressure steadily increasing until eventually it can't be contained any more, at which point it goes "bang." I would assume a round that released the pressure early would minimize the blast. Not sure it's an optimal solution, but if you expect a rice cooker to go bang in the next minute or so I think you can make an argument for relieving the pressure sooner rather than later. It probably makes more sense to just evacuate however.
• Suicide bomber: if someone wants to detonate an explosive in the TSA line at a busy airport you won't stop him. He'll load his device into a rolling bag and it will go "bang" when he chooses. Same with someone who wears an explosive vest into a subway train during the busiest part of the commute. Those are no-win scenarios. Maybe it's got a dead-man's switch. Maybe it's a fake explosive. But what we're seeing for the most part are fairly untrained and undisciplined ideologues putting together their attacks with the best weapons they can, and that generally means car/knife/gun style attacks. Maybe with explosives on a vest, but it's hard to swing a machete if you've got your dead-man's-switch held in a death-grip. I'd bet that in most cases a good head-shot would eliminate the guy's chance to trigger his vest.

But I still think you're more likely to run into fake explosive vests. If someone's resourceful enough to be able to build improvised explosives then their attack profile is more likely to be "plant as many bombs as possible before I'm caught, then die a glorious martyr when I'm found" than "walk somewhere and explode one time, when I could have maxed out my credit card and done 20x the damage."

Edited to add: let's just agree that not every construction problem can be solved with a hammer, just like not terrorist problem can be solved with CCW. Is that an argument against an armed populace? Some of us see this as the core part of your argument.

 

[Sunray]

"...members of the public to arm themselves with firearms..." That very few are allowed to own in the first place and are not trained to use fighting some punk with a bomb. Or even a knife.
"...Even most of the police are not armed..." Yep, but the ones who are armed don't dilly-dally around. Eight minutes to stop the London Bridge attacks.

 

[Prijador]

What OC-Trainer, were you like Ralphie in "Christmas Story", waiting for the teacher to give you an A++++ (plus!) for your thesis?

Some of us have jobs, and can't while away the days posting on the internet...

 

[Bad Ninja]

"...members of the public to arm themselves with firearms..." That very few are allowed to own in the first place and are not trained to use fighting some punk with a bomb. Or even a knife.

Assuming all citizens are untrained is ridiculous.

Doesn't the UK have a military?
So when a Brit leaves active duty do they surrender their training before they leave?
What %of UK citizens are former military?
This "untrained civilian" generalization is inherently false even in the UK.

 

[OC-Trainer]

Edited to add: let's just agree that not every construction problem can be solved with a hammer, just like not terrorist problem can be solved with CCW. Is that an argument against an armed populace?

Appreciate the thought out response. Only part I'm not seeing there is the surviving part. If the firearm can't help you survive then what's the point?

Some of us see this as the core part of your argument.

I stated my argument in post #83

That arming the Brits with firearms will do nothing to stop the types of attacks that they are experiencing. Manchester, Nice, Boston Marathon, etc. That other skills, tools, and methods would be much more valuable.

History has shown, and I've yet to see any compelling empirical data to the contrary, that a firearm will have virtually no impact, if any, on the types of attack listed above.

 

[OC-Trainer]

What OC-Trainer, were you like Ralphie in "Christmas Story", waiting for the teacher to give you an A++++ (plus!) for your thesis?

Some of us have jobs, and can't while away the days posting on the internet...

Then go back to your cubicle and work on the TPS reports. Log back in when you have some facts...

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Appreciate the thought out response. Only part I'm not seeing there is the surviving part. If the firearm can't help you survive then what the point?

To do the just and moral thing. To minimize civilian casualties. To defend a free society against fanatics who believe the only just society is a religious theocracy. To leave the world a better place by removing a terrible human being from it.

You're not going to get out of this world alive, brother. There are worse ways to die than this, certainly.

 

[Odd Job]

The British people are not ready to be armed in the same way the American people are.
Firstly, before a person takes up a firearm and carries it, and is in public with it, and is in public with it in a place and a time when there is a lot of drinking and late night partying going on, that person needs to have a suitable level of individual responsibility.

You don't become a responsible person just by carrying a gun. You have to be a responsible person first, before you carry a gun.

This is a society that has a decreased level of individual responsibility and tends more to a socialist community that expects the government to provide safety and security. As others have said, the concept of carrying a gun for any purpose (even self defence) is alien to the majority of Brits. You should see the look of horror I get when I tell my colleagues that I go target shooting and that I own guns right here in London.

The United Kingdom is imbued with a level of hoplophobia that approaches the hysterical. It has to be seen to be believed, my friends!
I am surprised we still have target shooting clubs. We can't even have .22 pistols to practise Olympic events, never mind any kind of weapon for self defence. Carrying any kind of weapon for self defence is illegal for the majority of ordinary citizens, even if it is a knife or a baton.

They have to learn to crawl before they can walk. And they don't want to crawl just yet because they are being wheeled around in the oh-so comfortable security perambulator that is provided by the government.

So the first problem is: the people as a majority must WANT to carry firearms for self defence. I think we are a long way off from that when even the majority of the police do not want to carry guns!

Second, even after that first perceptual and mental hurdle is negotiated, you have to put in place some kind of mechanism to bring a largely neutered and disarmed populace up to speed with the safe and responsible carrying and deployment of guns.

Whereas my upbringing in South Africa and many THR members' upbringing in the US probably involved a healthy dose of firearms training by family members, that tuition hasn't existed here for many moons. Unless some kind of scheme is put in place to train the new gun owners, you are going to end up with a situation where many more people are being shot dead accidentally, negligently or under nefarious circumstances than would have been killed by a handful of jihadis stabbing people on a night out.
And when you start having training schemes and accreditation and licensing you get into the territory of a government programme which will rival the training of armed officers in terms of costs. Don't forget, the existing armed police would also have to be retrained because now their standard operating procedures and "rules of engagement" would have to be modified to include scenarios where a friendly shooter is on the scene.

And what happens when the costs are made public? The tax payer simply says "use that money to train more armed police."

Perhaps a half-way compromise is to arm some security staff with Tasers, or pepper ball guns and see how that goes as a trial run. We'll see how many of those are lost, abused or inappropriately deployed before it can be argued that even a small sample of the general populace can be trusted with guns.

 

[RPZ]

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."

Yes, a robot was used because he lived long enough to position himself and make a boots approach very risky.

You say armed people everywhere; who? The police? The protesters? It certainly wasn't Joe or Jane Average, and out of any of that couple none would have been toting a slung AR.

People had cell phones, and filmed him shooting people, but no one unslung a rifle from a similar vantage point and put him down.

 

[salt&battery]

Yes, a robot was used because he lived long enough to position himself and make a boots approach very risky.

You say armed people everywhere; who? The police? The protesters? It certainly wasn't Joe or Jane Average, and out of any of that couple none would have been toting a slung AR.

People had cell phones, and filmed him shooting people, but no one unslung a rifle from a similar vantage point and put him down.

I guess you know all the cops had guns

 

[MistWolf]

Here is what the thread is about.


Here is the quote from the police chief:


Here is my initial post in this thread:


Which is fact. Tough pill to swallow for some, but it's reality.

Edit: No sense in belaboring the point. The best info we have to date on the subject shows that the armed citizen is essentially a non-factor during terrorist attacks. If anyone has anything concrete - empirical data, a case study, something that shows anything to the contrary, please post it. Or articulate how an armed citizen would have made any difference in the recent Manchester Attack or the Boston Bombing, for example, which is the crux of this thread.

You are looking at the situation from a very narrow set and carefully selected set of parameters.

What you are ignoring is advising civilians to not arm themselves against terrorist attacks also advising them to not arm themselves at all. When we walk out our doors, we cannot know if we will face violence from terrorists or criminals or if we will face violence at all.

It's much like saying we shouldn't have a fire extinguisher in case of arson because it won't help fight the conflagration. But it is still a good idea to have a fire extinguisher

 

[RPZ]

This thread is about the Brits and arming the subjects in regards to terrorism. That is what I am discussing.

ETA: It just show that other methods are needed. It is overly simplistic to suggest that a firearm is the answer to terrorism. Yes, this is a gun forum, but it isn't the answer for every possible evil act.

Your last sentence is simply stating the obvious.

You do not offer an alternative to the many terrorist truck, gun and knife attacks.

Brit politicians and media are as slick or slicker than anywhere else. There was active and vigorous opposition to the "gun control" legislation in the 1960s, the late 80s and early 90s. The Association of Chief Constables were on the spearhead of political pressure to completely disarm the British public.

This could be reversed and would be a first and obvious step. All those shooting enthusiasts during the 1990s, ex soldiers, etc who are still alive and well - now without their guns - did not all suddenly forget what they know.

In any country there is a constant stream of ex soldiers. Then there are reservists just like we have here. The long and the short if it is that Britain could turn this all around. The Czechs and other euro nations appear to be moving this direction.

 

[RPZ]

I guess you know all the cops had guns

Handguns, yes. I want to know what OC Trainer refers to as people carrying guns "all over the place".

 

[denton]

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.

I think your objection has been well answered: An armed citizen on site tends to reduce the carnage to the point that the event no longer qualifies as a mass shooting.

We know how many shootings we've had. But we don't know how many shootings we didn't have. Until that data is available, there is no way to conclude that an armed citizen did not prevent a mass shooting.

 

[OC-Trainer]

Yes, a robot was used because he lived long enough to position himself and make a boots approach very risky.

You say armed people everywhere; who? The police? The protesters? It certainly wasn't Joe or Jane Average, and out of any of that couple none would have been toting a slung AR.

People had cell phones, and filmed him shooting people, but no one unslung a rifle from a similar vantage point and put him down.

Do you even bother to fact check before you dismiss my statements? Do you honestly think I would state these things without first verifying them? I am very thorough. I eat, breath, and sleep personal protection.

About 20 to 30 open-carry gun rights activists joined the protest march, some wearing gas masks, bulletproof vests, and fatigues, according to Dallas Police Chief David Brown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers

The Associated Press said Dallas police estimated about 20 or 30 open carry activists to be present at the 7 July demonstration. And in a scene where shots were ringing out and so many people were carrying firearms, law enforcement may have had trouble discerning who was a threat.

“Doesn’t make sense to us, that that’s their right in Texas,” Mr Brown told CNN. “For our officers, they were suspects. And I support that belief. Someone is shooting at you from a perched position, and people are running with AR-15s and camo gear and gas masks and bulletproof vests.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cary-laws-tougher-mike-rawlings-a7131381.html

And here is a video for you. Do your homework before accuse someone!

 

[RPZ]

While I am in favor of a population having the right to be armed, unfortunately, the latest trend of a vehicle mowing down people in crowded areas, as happened lately in Stockholm, London, and NYC, seems to not lend itself to intervention by an armed citizen. The cars and trucks come through at high speed, people are not aware they are in danger until the vehicle passes.

It is only after the initial damage has been done that a bystander could react. At that point of course a gun would be helpful to stop any further actions by the terrorist, but it's after the carnage.

That depends; not everyone in the world is walking around in a trance. Put a few bullets into the driver the vehicle will likely stall and not go far, even the radiator, could mean stopping it there. Then there is after the ploughing is over they are getting out and stabbing people. Next it will be guns.

 

[RPZ]

Do you even bother to fact check before you dismiss my statements? Do you honest think I would state this things without first verifying them? I am very thorough. I eat, breath, and sleep personal protection.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cary-laws-tougher-mike-rawlings-a7131381.html

And here is a video for you. Do your homework before accuse someone!

Calling these people "open carry protesters" is a gross misrepresentation. It was not an open carry protest, and you ought to know what the protest was about. Gas masks and vests? Come on man pull my other leg. None of those in the protest were going to intervene with a perp shooting at cops.

 

[hdwhit]

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

Care to give some examples that can actually be supported with evidence?