Stunning Column in British Newspaper

[Bruff]

LINK:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece


"Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America. It is a skewed image, because (despite the Second Amendment) until recently in much of the US it has been illegal to bear arms outside the home or workplace; and therefore only people willing to defy the law have carried weapons.

In the past two decades the enactment of “right to carry” legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted. "

 

[Gabe]

...Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery....

This sums up very nicely the problem with antis - they think criminals committing crimes is normal, and noncriminals carrying guns is abnormal.

 

[terraformer]

LINK:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece


"Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America. It is a skewed image, because (despite the Second Amendment) until recently in much of the US it has been illegal to bear arms outside the home or workplace; and therefore only people willing to defy the law have carried weapons.

In the past two decades the enactment of “right to carry” legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted. "

The message it is sending is not bad given the audience. That being legal firearms ownership is not the problem.

 

[Erebus]

Not sure I agree that armed citizens would have made a difference in Mumbai but I do agree with the rest of the article.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

It would have been better to have had a gun and not to have needed it than to needed a gun and not had it.

No doubt about that in my mind what so ever.

Not sure I agree that armed citizens would have made a difference in Mumbai but I do agree with the rest of the article.

 

[Erebus]

It would have been better to have had a gun and not to have needed it than to needed a gun and not had it.

No doubt about that in my mind what so ever.

I agree, but an armed citizen with a handgun would have been no more than a speed bump to these guys. Given the number of people that actually carry where it's allowed I can't see anything more than slowing them down for a few seconds. These guys were heavily armed, well trained, and had combat experience. Joe Citizen with his Glock doesn't have a chance.

Handgun versus many full auto rifles and hand grenades = FAIL.

 

[vellnueve]

I initially agreed, but when I saw that there were 2-4 of them at most at each site, I sorta wavered. Yes, you'd probably end up dead, but there's a fair chance you could have taken one of them, and that might have spurred the cowardly police into taking the others.

 

[Palladin]

nice to see this POV from a Britian.

 

[calsdad]

I agree, but an armed citizen with a handgun would have been no more than a speed bump to these guys. Given the number of people that actually carry where it's allowed I can't see anything more than slowing them down for a few seconds. These guys were heavily armed, well trained, and had combat experience. Joe Citizen with his Glock doesn't have a chance.

Handgun versus many full auto rifles and hand grenades = FAIL.

So what? A speedbump is still a speedbump. I can't say I know this from first hand experience, but I have read numerous accounts from combat soldiers and trainers who point out that the normal human response to being shot at - is to avoid the fire. So instead of having a bunch of guys who are running around with the upper hand against defenseless civilians what you get by shooting back is you turn into a fight - instead of a slaughter. That is a BIG difference.

You are going to die anyway - what do you have to lose by fighting back.

You are making an argument that is the same one as that typically made by anti-gun forces.

THAT deserves a big FAIL.

 

[atmay]

You are going to die anyway - what do you have to lose by fighting back.

I forget where I saw this, but:

You may find me laying dead in a ditch, but I'll be laying in a pile of brass

I completely agree that, if you're more than likely going to die anyway, and you have the opportunity to either save your own ass, or someone else's, you should go for it. Certainly, you shouldn't just throw your life away uselessly, that would be dumb, but with a little bit of planning and waiting for the opportune moment, you could make a difference.

Also, even if you fail miserably, if people start fighting back enough, maybe these a**h***s will get the message that we aint going to stand for their shit anymore. Will it happen overnight? Maybe not. But every little bit helps. Just like we'll probably never see another hijacked plane, because people know what terrorists do with planes, and the terrorists know this, and know that it wouldn't turn out well for them.

 

[Roastie]

I feel that other countries should not have firearms. I enjoy the fact that they do not. I wish the only country that had them was the US.

 

[atmay]

I feel that other countries should not have firearms. I enjoy the fact that they do not. I wish the only country that had them was the US.

WTF, over?

 

[Erebus]

So what? A speedbump is still a speedbump. I can't say I know this from first hand experience, but I have read numerous accounts from combat soldiers and trainers who point out that the normal human response to being shot at - is to avoid the fire. So instead of having a bunch of guys who are running around with the upper hand against defenseless civilians what you get by shooting back is you turn into a fight - instead of a slaughter. That is a BIG difference.

You are going to die anyway - what do you have to lose by fighting back.

You are making an argument that is the same one as that typically made by anti-gun forces.

THAT deserves a big FAIL.

Standing and fighting you have no chance of surviving. They will focus fire on you. Get low and get scarce and you might escape alive. Maybe it's not the glorious display of bravado everyone likes to claim they would execute, but I'm going to do what gives me and mine the best chance to live through it.

One guy with a machine gun you might surprise and get the drop on. Two maybe you might get lucky and get them both. Above that number and you are looking to pull off a miracle. Also many of these places were where people were with their families. I'm not going to draw the fire of multiple men with machine guns down on my family unless I absolutely have to.

I would rather try and escape if at all possible.

 

[gene]

I would rather have a gun and take a chance at protecting myself than die in the streets with no chance of self protection available because I have been deprived of that right regardless of whether I was outnumbered or out trained.

 

[offcamber]

Great article!! I will be forwarding that to a few people.

 

[terraformer]

One guy with a machine gun you might surprise and get the drop on. Two maybe you might get lucky and get them both.

They stayed in pairs.

 

[WILDCATT]

training

how many ex soldiers are there in this country.there are many of us that have been highly trained to shoot and hit.and not in the military.I was well trained before I went in,my father was a marine in ww1 in france.as was all my uncles and they served in NG.after.

 

[clinotus]

You are kidding yourself if you think a pistol against a trained rifleman will make a difference. Your odds decrease even more so if its an automatic rifle you are fighting against and your chances enter the 'never had a chance:zero' category against with a trained rifleman with full auto.

I do agree it is better to make the attempt to survive and stand (etymologically) rather than cower. But we have to be realistic here and cast the fantasies aside.

 

[Erebus]

They stayed in pairs.

Oh well than clearly the well trained and combat hardened terrorists with machine guns and grenades don't stand a chance against against one telecom technician with a pistol.</humor>

Look if you wanna be the heroic bullet magnet that's fine with me. I'm going to do whatever I think gives my family and myself the best chance of escape/survival. And I doubt causing bullets and grenades to rain down on them will be high on the list of options.

 

[terraformer]

You are kidding yourself if you think a pistol against a trained rifleman will make a difference. Your odds decrease even more so if its an automatic rifle you are fighting against and your chances enter the 'never had a chance:zero' category against with a trained rifleman with full auto.

I do agree it is better to make the attempt to survive and stand (etymologically) rather than cower. But we have to be realistic here and cast the fantasies aside.

It is not a Die Hard scenario that would work out, it is enough CCWs in the crowd that could make a difference. But again, it is a numerical thing, not some hero scenario and we don't have that number of CCws here. I am thinking more like Isreal who, despite massive qtys of AKs in the area, doesn't have attacks like this. Clearly other threats, just not this one.

 

[terraformer]

Oh well than clearly the well trained and combat hardened terrorists with machine guns and grenades don't stand a chance against against one telecom technician with a pistol.</humor>

Look if you wanna be the heroic bullet magnet that's fine with me. I'm going to do whatever I think gives my family and myself the best chance of escape/survival. And I doubt causing bullets and grenades to rain down on them will be high on the list of options.

See my response to clinotus. This mirrors another post I made on the subject the day of. It is not a lone hero that would have made a difference, but an armed society in general where enough of the population CCW'd. I am not talking 80% of the population, but on the order of 35-100/1000 and not the paltry 3/1000 we have in free states.

 

[clinotus]

It is not a Die Hard scenario that would work out, it is enough CCWs in the crowd that could make a difference. But again, it is a numerical thing, not some hero scenario and we don't have that number of CCws here. I am thinking more like Isreal who, despite massive qtys of AKs in the area, doesn't have attacks like this. Clearly other threats, just not this one.

See my response to clinotus. This mirrors another post I made on the subject the day of. It is not a lone hero that would have made a difference, but an armed society in general where enough of the population CCW'd. I am not talking 80% of the population, but on the order of 35-100/1000 and not the paltry 3/1000 we have in free states.

I dont disagree with you on the principle that armed persons could make a difference, I just believe that the reality of the situation is far different. We could place 15 CCW average Joes in an open floor space like a mall, but when you introduce a single rifleman in full auto, 11 of those 15 are probable sitting ducks. All 15 if the rifleman can engage them past a reasonable range. If you introduce even further full auto capacity its a no win situation, yet I would honor anyone who still actively attempted the engagement to slow the rifleman down.

We can't really hold Israel up to par or as example since our cultures are so vastly different. Would it be great to have millions of Americans walking about with full tilt AR's? Probably. Will it ever happen?...probably not.

Would the knowledge that millions of Americans were walking about with open or concealed weapons lessen the chances of events like that occurring? I believe so...here is to hope.

 

[Erebus]

See my response to clinotus. This mirrors another post I made on the subject the day of. It is not a lone hero that would have made a difference, but an armed society in general where enough of the population CCW'd. I am not talking 80% of the population, but on the order of 35-100/1000 and not the paltry 3/1000 we have in free states.

I agree that an armed populace in that ratio would have a deterrence for some types of criminals. But I don't think it will deter crazies on a suicide mission. They are looking to produce as high a body count as they can. As we have seen in this country they simply pick an easy target like a school or other place guns are prohibited. In India they could pick anywhere so they choose the targets with the the largest number of tourists and Jews for maximum international shock value.

I think we agree then that none of us are John McClane. I believe I misunderstood what you were saying prior to reading what I quoted above.

 

[drgrant]

You are kidding yourself if you think a pistol against a trained rifleman will make a difference. Your odds decrease even more so if its an automatic rifle you are fighting against and your chances enter the 'never had a chance:zero' category against with a trained rifleman with full auto.

I dunno if full auto really makes that much of a difference. The biggest cause of death here is that these guys had the initiative roll; that and they had a plan and stuck to it (they knew where they were going) and systematically shot people and moved, they didn't stay in one place for very long. They shot and tossed grenades on the move and they moved FAST. And they were accurate enough that they didn't waste tons of ammo killing people, which is why the commandos had such a hard time getting them- they were still getting shot at by these guys even after the initial killing sprees were over.

I do agree it is better to make the attempt to survive and stand (etymologically) rather than cower. But we have to be realistic here and cast the fantasies aside.

While I doubt a few armed folks would have made much of a difference in the body count, or deterred the attack, they might have afforded a few people the opportunity to survive. Even if those shooting back run a high probability of getting killed, it would be distracting enough to the BGs that it might allow a few more people to run away, etc. If they have to react to incoming fire, then the game changes, even if it's only for 5 seconds.

Frankly, though, to me, none of this crap matters because at the end of the day (to use that POS cliche) disarming free people is morally reprehensible- period, end. I think most of us can agree with that- regardless of whether or not having a few armed citizens on hand would have made a "real" difference or not.

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

I agree that an armed populace in that ratio would have a deterrence for some types of criminals. But I don't think it will deter crazies on a suicide mission.

No, but it would case them to shift tactics, or force them into a situation where there was a higher level of randomness and risk.

They are looking to produce as high a body count as they can. As we have seen in this country they simply pick an easy target like a school or other place guns are prohibited.

Yup, we have lots of soft targets in this country these days. I can't believe we haven't seen a mall get the jihadist spray treatment. Mall of america is a particularly inviting target given the proximity to the single largest Muslim population (in that the jihadists would hide there, not that muslims are inherently evil) in the country and the symbolism of taking out the mall of america. Check out this little ditty on recruitment in the US...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/12/08/arena.mn.terror.recruitment.cnn

Although it makes for excellent entertainment (mall ninjas...) value, our malls are not nearly secure as they need to be. I know AQ has gone after mass transit (which has a huge knock on effect on an economy) before but that is yesterday's target in far less retail consumer oriented Europe. Here, hitting retail commerce would have a bigger effect than elsewhere. Tomorrows target is unfortunately Target and not the T.

 

[Pete85]

The thing with the Mumbai attacks though is throwing armed citizens into the mix there forces the terrorists to change their plans. Armed citizens create a big wild card that cannot be ignored. In a country like India where the only people with guns are the police/military and the terroriists, the terrorists know exactly who is a threat to their mission and can plan for it. Add armed citizens into the mix and now you have an unknown number of potential threats to their mission that can't as easily be planned for. One person probably wouldn't have made a difference, but a few armed people, a dozen armed people, a completely armed society (near 100%) and the terrorists' chances of success diminish with each additional armed citizen.

There's no 100% chance of success on either side so long as the other side has weapons and people to weild them but armed citizens, even with nothing more than semiautomatic handguns would have created a huge obsticle for the terrorists to try to overcome. The odds against the terrorists increase even more if some of the armed people know each other. A group of friends, coworkers etc, who know that there are at least a few armed people there can work together to take out a bunch of terrorists quickly by exploiting the tactical advantage they have: suprise. In that case, the "victims" have the advantage that they know where the terrorists are, but the terrorists don't know that they are armed. I'm not saying it would be easy to stop them but it would be much easier to stop them with armed and trained citizens.

 

[offcamber]

The thing with the Mumbai attacks though is throwing armed citizens into the mix there forces the terrorists to change their plans. Armed citizens create a big wild card that cannot be ignored.

This is true..reminds me a of a famous quote by Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy during WWII. He said " You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

 

[Negotiator]

Here's another article by the same guy...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece

 

[terraformer]

Here's another article by the same guy...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece

Gotta love this...

What are the actual gun laws in England?
Kyle, London, England

He is british and doesn't even know.

 

[Gabe]

We just recently had a good discussion about the Mumbai event in this thread, and this discussion is bringing up even more perspectives around what good CCW actually serves.

It has me thinking that CCW isn't all that sensible. It definitely is advantageous for the carrier as regards protecting himself in isolated incidents, but those arguing that it would have done very little against the Mumbai terrorists have a very good point. I agree with terraformer that a 5-10% CCW rate might make a difference, but not at the current MA <1% rate. And those arguing that pistols are poor defense against riflemen are right too. So...

Have we fallen for an anti-generated false dichotomy? We argue about the value of carrying versus not carrying, and open carry versus CCW, but is this like arguing about where the Titannic deck chairs should be placed? Maybe we need to rethink the whole "bear arms" concept. Maybe we need to reframe the discussion and begin thinking about carrying pistols versus carrying rifles instead.

In the linked thread, Calsdad argued for the importance of militias, and I argued that in order to truly defend against a Mumbai-like attack on American soil required professional security of some sort; but I think we were both stuck in the "pistol paradigm." If we instead get really old school (or current-school, as in Israel and many Arab countries) and consider civilians toting around rifles, then we can actually envision a realistic way in which relatively untrained civilians can pose a serious impediment to serious terrorists.

I think it's worth thinking about. Maybe we need to break out of the fear-fed, anti-imposed "pistol paradigm," and start arguing on our terms - the terms of free men and free women. We all have long guns, but we keep them at home, even though in an event like Mumbai, they are the best defense we can muster. The antis would really prefer that we keep fighting about concealed pistols, and we all know why; they pee their panties whenever they are reminded that this is the real world. Let's not limit ourselves because of someone else's wet underwear.