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

[OC-Trainer]

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.

That's all you've got? I just proved to you that people were walking around with ARs. Which you said didn't happen. And that's your response? Very weak.

You are not serious about having a honest discourse. You can't see the facts...so be it.

 

[hdwhit]

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

Well, you're the one who is talking about saturation, so why don't you go find some figures to show just what those "saturation levels" really are? This is your argument, you need to support it rather than just throwing it out there and saying that if someone doesn't agree with it, they need to go do the research I should have done in the first place. And once you have that, then link to some research indicating what level of firearms presence in a public assembly constitutes an "adequate" level of saturation to have an effective deterrent effect or allow an effective counter-force response.

 

[hdwhit]

AlexanderA wrote:
The situation is Britain is not comparable to that in the U.S. There is no gun culture to speak of,...

Quite correct - particularly where handguns are concerned.

Passing out handguns to the untrained, unfamiliar population in England would be as irresponsible as passing out guns to a kindergarten class.

 

[salt&battery]

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

I am not your girl Friday. NY ILL California to start with look it up. around me in NY cops and firemen getting near 100K .California out of control politicians prison guards CHIP state police teachers. come on are you trying to kid me?

 

[paulsj]

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

When one considers what average policeman or policewoman make it becomes obvious people expect too much from them. For me to take extra risks to protect & save others would require much higher compensation.

 

[RPZ]

That's all you've got? I just proved to you that people were walking around with ARs. Which you said didn't happen. And that's your response? Very weak.

You are not serious about having a honest discourse. You can't see the facts...so be it.

I see.

So lets have an objective discourse on the issue of armed protesters at this protest in Dallas when the shooting occurred. Who were the protesters, and what were they protesting ABOUT?

"Oink oink bang bang!!"

You are proposing those armed oink oink bang bangers were going to do anything about a shooter killing cops??

So who is not being serious here?

 

[RPZ]

Quite correct - particularly where handguns are concerned.

Passing out handguns to the untrained, unfamiliar population in England would be as irresponsible as passing out guns to a kindergarten class.

I don't think passing out handguns en masse is what any proponents would say,. See my previous post on that subject.

 

[RPZ]

Well, you're the one who is talking about saturation, so why don't you go find some figures to show just what those "saturation levels" really are? This is your argument, you need to support it rather than just throwing it out there and saying that if someone doesn't agree with it, they need to go do the research I should have done in the first place. And once you have that, then link to some research indicating what level of firearms presence in a public assembly constitutes an "adequate" level of saturation to have an effective deterrent effect or allow an effective counter-force response.

Current Texas population is about 28 million? Divide that by the current number of Texas CHL holders and you get a starting point. How many actually carried at all times? How many on any one given day are in Texas, travelling through etc with CHLs from reciprocal States? Impossible to say.

When was the last time I saw a guy or gal walking on the streets of Houston with a slung AR? Never. Not once. I would imagine most people in Dallas would offer a similar response.

What OC Trainer is not saying - or does not know - is the nature of the protest at the time of the shooting, nor why some them were armed with rifles, and had gasmasks and vests. He linked a media story that refers to the armed individuals as "open carry protesters". That is a laughable misrepresentation, and a real insult to the POs that were murdered that day and their colleagues.

 

[paulsj]

“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.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-fight-terror-attack-says-police-commissioner

Yes, if possible running away from sound of explosion or gun shots is real good idea.

 

[Kendahl]

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.

The model for self defense in the United Kingdom and most of Europe is different from that in the United States. In the UK, it's just that -- defense -- keeping your assailant from harming you. In the US, it's counterattack -- injuring your assailant so badly that he is no longer physically able to harm you. A couple of days ago, I watched a surveillance video of an attempted mugging in the parking lot of an American strip mall. The female victim used her purse to slap the mugger's handgun away, punched him (I think) in the throat, kicked him in the crotch and drove her knee into his face. Then, with her erstwhile assailant on the ground in so much pain he could hardly move, she got into her vehicle and left the scene. Especially with the video as evidence, no American court would convict her of assault. I doubt that's the case in the UK. The UK has no objection to the use of force but it's a prerogative of government that is prohibited to the general public.

Americans party hard, too, but carrying a firearm while intoxicated is forbidden. Most places, consumption of any amount of alcohol is forbidden while you are armed.

Training need not be at public expense. It isn't in the United States. Someone who wishes to carry must provide his own equipment. If a permit is required, he must pay the issuing agency's administrative costs. If training is required, he pays for that, too.

The UK already has a pool of likely prospects -- current members of its police and armed forces and former members who have maintained a clean criminal record following their service. In the US, the permit system does a very good job of selecting candidates who will not misuse the weapons with which they are entrusted. Decades of experience have shown that they are ten times less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the public who do not hold permits.

 

[OC-Trainer]

What OC Trainer is not saying

"Oink oink bang bang!!"

You are proposing those armed oink oink bang bangers were going to do anything about a shorter killing cops??

So who is not being serious here?

How are we supposed to take you seriously when you post that nonsense?

OC-Trainer is not, not saying anything. I gave you 2 links to the incident and a video. You are simply not comprehending what transpired that day.
Reread them until you get it right.

 

[mbok1947]

When I hear these endless "what if" discussions I always go back to Susanna Hupp who survived the 1991 Luby's mass shooting in Texas but could not intervene to save any of the 23 killed (including her own parents) because her gun was in her car due to no CCW laws. In any such situation I am going to be thankful I am armed, whether I am able to intervene effectively or not . . . even if my chance of saving one life (perhaps my own) is one percent, that's more than the zero percent from simply being an unarmed bullet magnet.

It is inevitable, given the number of honest and cautious CCW holders out there, that one will one day intervene decisively and effectively in such a situation to save many many lives. Is it a certainty in every possible case? Of course not; the stats clearly show that it is likely a rarity and always will be. But one percent will always be greater than zero.

 

[RPZ]

How are we supposed to take you seriously when you post that nonsense?

OC-Trainer is not, not saying anything. I gave you 2 links to the incident and a video. You are simply not comprehending what transpired that day.
Reread them until you get it right.

I would not use the term "we".

Facts.

The shooter in this case was Micah Xavier Johnson. He was not a "terrorist" in the context of this discussion, he targeted and murdered five peace officers.

The protest was about the shooting and killing by police of Alton Sterling in LA, Philando Castile in MN, and was among many such "protests" against the police shooting of and killing of a number of black and other "minority" persons. The armed folk misleadingly referred to as "open carry protesters" were an armed show of force against the police.

Although many well meaning people often take part in these protests, the organized groups involved are people like the "New" Black Panthers, BLM etc. They are hostile to police in general. They commonly chant things like "oink oink bang bang!", "pigs in a blanket", and on and so forth.

So the contingent of this protest that were armed and carrying rifles were not going to launch any counter attack on the shooter. And this example of "X number" of rifle carrying people at the scene of this shooting has no bearing on the topic subject, nor my point concerning saturation, handgun or long gun.

 

[RPZ]

"...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.

And in those 8 minutes one man took them on unarmed.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17296/meet-lion-london-bridge-guy-who-fought-three-james-barrett#

If he had had a handgun he might have done the same and not wound up in critical condition in hospital. If one in ten of the public at large had been armed, those three would not have lasted a minute or two.

 

[OC-Trainer]

So the contingent of this protest that were armed and carrying rifles were not going to launch any counter attack on the shooter.

I just want to know how you know this? Especially when some of the individuals involved (in the video I linked) are on record as saying they offered to help the police. One of the guys with the AR. But I guess they are just lying or it just didn't fit your narrative.

Just to book end the Dallas attack and how it relates to this thread, here is the police commissioner's quote:

“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.”

Now here is the Dallas police chief David Brown's comments regarding the attacks:

“But it’s increasingly challenging when people have AR-15s slung over their shoulder and they’re in a crowd,” he said. “We don’t know who the good guy is versus the bad guy when everyone starts shooting.”

What an amazing similarity?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-chief-20160711-snap-story.html

this shooting has no bearing on the topic subject

Okay, then stop talking about it.

 

[RPZ]

I just want to know how you know this? Especially when some of the individuals involved (in the video I linked) are on record as saying they offered to help the police. One of the guys with the AR. But I guess they are just lying or it just didn't fit your narrative.

Just to book end the Dallas attack and how it relates to this thread, here is the police commissioner's quote:


Now here is the Dallas police chief David Brown's comments regarding the attacks:


What an amazing similarity?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-chief-20160711-snap-story.html



Okay, then stop talking about it.

How do I know this? Because I have been following this stuff for decades, and there are common threads in the organizers, funders, and participants. Nothing new under the sun here. Some offered "help"; no bearing. They were asking permission to assist, which as most people know, would be instantly refused. But yes, there are often some well meaning people in the mob. But this protest was specifically anti police, as was the intent of the shooter.

No surprise on the Dallas Police Commissioner and Police Chief statements. Of course they do not want a public at large arming themselves, open carry, nor any level of saturation. Nothing new there; would anyone expect anything different coming from them? It would be like asking Diane Feinstein the same question.

QUOTE: "Okay, then stop talking about it."

You challenged me on my points, and seemed to think it did have some bearing.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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

No, it really hasn't. It is just that the media really plays up some types of mass shootings over others. Mass shootings defined as being 4 or more people shot other than the bad guy, do not mostly happen in gun free zones, but such shootings definitely seem more newsworthy. I have also seen how folks like to rework the mass shooting concept however...First, let's do away with any mass shooting that involves gang activity. Let's do away with any involving other crime. Let's do away with those where at least 4 people aren't killed (Mother Jones bizarre redefinition that a mass shooting isn't a mass shooting unless it is first mass murder). Now, it is a fact that most mass shooting in gun-free zones do happen in gun-free zones. That is true. However, you need to look at those that don't in gun-free zones that aren't necessarily on the national news. Then you realize how many are happening that aren't in gun-free zones.

Here are a few recent examples of non-gun-free zone mass shootings you probably never heard about.
http://www.pal-item.com/story/news/...etown-neighborhood-no-arrests-made/100735900/
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/06/10/7-shot-2-dead-shooting-fort-worth/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/at-least-5-people-shot-in-downtown-seattle-police-say/
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...e-party/ar-BBAyXIb?li=BB13Rnn&ocid=spartandhp
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/video?videoId=517938107&videoVersion=1.0
http://www.news4jax.com/news/jso-4-shot-in-moncrief-park
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...iff-s-deputy-fatally-shot-mississippi-n765596 (mass and spree)
http://www.wesh.com/article/6-people-shot-1-killed-in-parramore/3913697
http://www.khou.com/news/crime/six-...-apartment-complex-in-north-houston/425723842
http://www.wftv.com/news/local/poli...ding-2-boys-in-sanford-neighborhood/506352316

 

[RPZ]

No, it really hasn't. It is just that the media really plays up some types of mass shootings over others. Mass shootings defined as being 4 or more people shot other than the bad guy, do not mostly happen in gun free zones, but such shootings definitely seem more newsworthy. I have also seen how folks like to rework the mass shooting concept however...First, let's do away with any mass shooting that involves gang activity. Let's do away with any involving other crime. Let's do away with those where at least 4 people aren't killed (Mother Jones bizarre redefinition that a mass shooting isn't a mass shooting unless it is first mass murder). Now, it is a fact that most mass shooting in gun-free zones do happen in gun-free zones. That is true. However, you need to look at those that don't in gun-free zones that aren't necessarily on the national news. Then you realize how many are happening that aren't in gun-free zones.

Here are a few recent examples of non-gun-free zone mass shootings you probably never heard about.
http://www.pal-item.com/story/news/...etown-neighborhood-no-arrests-made/100735900/
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/06/10/7-shot-2-dead-shooting-fort-worth/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/at-least-5-people-shot-in-downtown-seattle-police-say/
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...e-party/ar-BBAyXIb?li=BB13Rnn&ocid=spartandhp
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/video?videoId=517938107&videoVersion=1.0
http://www.news4jax.com/news/jso-4-shot-in-moncrief-park
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...iff-s-deputy-fatally-shot-mississippi-n765596 (mass and spree)
http://www.wesh.com/article/6-people-shot-1-killed-in-parramore/3913697
http://www.khou.com/news/crime/six-...-apartment-complex-in-north-houston/425723842
http://www.wftv.com/news/local/poli...ding-2-boys-in-sanford-neighborhood/506352316

Interesting post. But going through them I would not class any of them as a "mass shooting". The term has caught on as a media buzz phrase, and attempting to define it in an objective context by X number of victims does not work. To quote from the first article: "All four victims told police that they were sitting on the front porch of a home when shots were fired at them from an unknown direction, Smiley said. No other information was immediately available".

Better to define shootings in context of motives: terror attack, rampage, robbery, whatever. The media sock puppets are simply using the term "mass shooting" to build some kind of imperative and compelling need to justify something down the road. Like more "gun control".

 

[Blkhrt13]

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

By that logic, we should get rid of the police.

Now your talking fire them all

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The 160
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf
J. Pete Blair and Katherine W. Schweit, "A Study of Active Shooter Incidents, 2000 - 2013", Texas State University and Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., 2014.
This is a study of of what FBI termed active shooter incidents -- individual or individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area confined or unconfined. It is not a study of mass killings or mass shooting only 64 of the 160 qualified as "mass killing" (FBI definition 3 or more dead).
158 active shooters were "lone wolves" only 2 had partners
6 active shooters were women
37 active shooters committed suicide before police arrived
17 active shooters committed suicide after police arrived but before police could act
9 active shooters committed suicide after exchanging gunfire with police
only 6 active shooters wore or were carrying body armor
only 3 active shooters carried improvised explosive devices
"Of the 160 incidents, at least 107 (66.9%) ended before police arrived and could engage the shooter, either because a citizen intervened, the shooter fled, or the shooter committed suicide or was killed by someone at the scene."
21 incidents were ended after unarmed citizens restrained the shooter
5 incidents were ended after armed non-LE citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooter
"The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally managed museum, and a school board meeting"
2 incidents were ended when off-duty police exchanged gunfire with the shooter

This 160 study by Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University (TXST) is geared for training police going into an active shooter situation. I am not sure that stats based on a narrow definition of "active shooter" speaks to whether private arms are a deterrent value in active shooter, mass shooter or terrorist attacks.*
The Sullivan County high school incident would not count. The in-school resource officer SRO held off at gun point a gunman who had entered the school. (The gunman had demanded the SRO's gun and wanted the school fire alarms sounded, so could have been a mass shooting situation.) As per training, other Sullivan Co deputies were at the school immediately when alerted and went in to engage the gunman. When ordered to disarm, the gunman swerved his gun toward the deputies then back to the SRO (herself a sheriff's deputy); he was promptly shot.
The resource officer at Columbine was outside the school and took his training as meaning call for SWAT and hostage negotiators rather than engage an active shooter.
I saved a documentary on the 21 Sep 2013 Westgate Shopping Mall Massacre, Nairobi, Kenya.
"Terror at the Mall" HBO CNN.
About 2000 people in the mall. CCTV footage, accounts of eye witnesses, make it clear these are tough events. Just like Columbine, the SWAT took hours of containing the perimeter and waiting for orders from headquarters before going in. Off-duty police and ex-military some with private arms went in on their own recognisance and rescued hundreds trapped in the mall (the police were in civilan clothes and their issue long arm was AK). The military finally went in and shot two policemen then withdrew after about 90 minutes.
_____________________________
* Wright & Rossi could interview prisoners and ask if they knew of crimes deterred by armed citizens.
In the James D. Wright & Peter Rossi armed inmate survey (sample size of 1865 inmates, 18 prisons, 10 states)
81% will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.
57% said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.
40% said that they had been deterred from a crime because they believed the victim was armed.
34% said that they had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen.
74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings because of fear of being shot.
57% said that most criminals feared armed victims more than they feared police.
I do not believe there has been an attempt to ask active shooters if private arms were a deterrent or changed their plans. The sample size of surviving active shooters is too small to be statistically significant any way.
For terrorists, they do publish lists of preferred targets. The Jihadist publication Rumiyah, ninth issue:
"Ideal target locations for hostage-taking scenarios include night clubs, movie theaters, busy shopping malls and large stores, popular restaurants, concert halls, university campuses, public swimming pools, indoor ice skating rinks, and generally any busy enclosed area, as such an environment allows for one to take control of the situation by rounding up the kuffar [non-Muslims] present inside and allows one to massacre them while using the building as a natural defense against any responding force attempting to enter and bring the operation to a quick halt."
They don't list gun shows or gun clubs or shooting ranges for some reason.

 

[MEHavey]

- delete -

 

[MEHavey]

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.

Fascinating....

Since the Terrorists hit soft "No-gun" zones & get away with it until finally killed by "official" people who show up with guns,
Ispso facto armed citizens will never count.

Fascinating....

 

[RPZ]

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/all-about-bombs

And I have to add the suggested danger zone of "400 meters" in this link is baloney. 400 meters is getting on for a third of a mile. They go on to say a 500 kilogram (about 1,100 pounds) car bomb may have injured people a half a mile away.

A very large car bomb, potentially, yes. Because the mass of pieces of metal debris and secondary objects, might carry them that far, and they could cause serious injury or death. I have seen this in europe during the IRA bombings in Ireland and the UK mainland, and later on the Baader Meinhofs - aka Red Army Faction - in Europe during the 1970s and 80s.

Scrap metal, nails, nuts, bolts, etc attached to the outside of explosives are going to lose velocity quickly and be subject to rapid trajectory falloff. If true high explosive is used, initial velocity could be very high, thus from that point of view being struck by a single projectile could be serious or deadly out to a distance of perhaps 200 yards. Maybe more, maybe less It depends on the weight, dimensions, velocity of the projectile, and what part of the body is struck. At close distances, depending on the type and amount of explosive used, the effect of the blast alone can cause dismembering, breaking bones and literally turning bodies to pulp. If something less than a genuine high explosive is used, the effect and radius of significant danger is greatly reduced. Low explosives, even if contained, will have a greatly reduced effect. Then there is projectile dispersion; think shooting a 12 gauge with 000 buck at a 100 yard target - you might be lucky if one pellet strikes a human torso size target if any..

In the recent Manchester bomb attack a man that was about 9 feet away from the blast walked away relatively unhurt while people much further away received fatal injuries. Suicide vests are generally not uniform in their effect, because they are not uniformly designed.

If I were faced with some bearded guy wearing a vest within head shooting range of rifle or pistol I would probably let him have it. Especially if he was clear of bystanders to an equal distance. The bottom line is that he is going to detonate it anyway, and better "there" than in a more tightly packed crowd - or even closer to me.

 

[OC-Trainer]

And I have to add the suggested danger zone of "400 meters" in this link is baloney. 400 meters is getting on for a third of a mile. They go on to say a 500 kilogram (about 1,100 pounds) car bomb may have injured people a half a mile away.

Oh, so you are a bomb/demolition expert, now? Please, give it up. You've spent the whole thread building scarecrows.

 

[OC-Trainer]

Fascinating....

Since the Terrorists hit soft "No-gun" zones & get away with it until finally killed by "official" people who show up with guns,
Ispso facto armed citizens will never count.

Fascinating....

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.