Stunning Column in British Newspaper

[terraformer]

If we instead get really old school (or current-school, as in Israel and many Arab countries) and consider civilians toting around rifles

Israelis don't tote around M16s from what I understand about the environment there. Members of the civilian defense force have them on check out and leave them at home like switzerland (maybe the swiss is more permanent about ownership of the rifle but you got the point). Security guards may have sub-guns, etc but I do not believe regular citizens tote M16s around the streets.

God, I wish it wasn't winter when I was in Switzerland, I would have loved to see some of the things folks here have described about impromptu shooting matches on a sunny afternoon, etc.

 

[calsdad]

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.

Exactly.

My big problem with all of these discussions is the absolute inability for most people to think outside the box.

They go back and forth about how a person with a pistol is no match for somebody with a rifle - as if that is true in EVERY situation, and as if it really has any relevance to the discussion.

The part that I hate worst of all when I see people on a gun oriented website such as NES making arguments about how CCW would have no effect in a situation like Mumbai (besides the argument coming from lack of real world knowledge) - is the fact that YOU as a gun owner are essentially arguing for the opposition - you are in essence giving ammunition to those who would like to take all the guns away from civilians.

That is the part that makes these arguments especially pathetic and tiresome in my book - that they are coming from people who are in basically cutting their own throats ( and cutting mine by the way - which is something I REALLY don't appreciate).

Here is one person's perspective on what "good" a handgun can do:

http://billstclair.com/blog/stories/handgun.html

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army.....?
Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 2003-06-18 06:50.
by Mike Vanderboegh
[from stanleyscoop]

A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed: "If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)" If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, once told me:

"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic."

Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question. Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.

.................

READ THE REST AT THE LINK

It's pretty obvious from the responses in this thread (and some of the others that have cropped up on NES recently) ..... is that there is a complete lack of will. And that is the real problem.

But since we are in the mode of arguing minutia, lets argue some:

- so you are trapped in a hotel room in Mumbai, you hear the terrorists running thru the halls, ,knocking on doors - and shooting defenseless "citizens" down. You look out the window and see the police cowering behind lampposts - and lobbing grenades thru the hotel windows, trying to take out the terrorists. Since I fail to see how being WITHOUT a handgun in this circumstance would be a GOOD thing - somebody please inform me. Discuss.

- You are running down an alley with a full size pistol in your hand - trying to escape the terrorists who are essentially roaming free-range around the city, you are coming down an alley, and as you turn the corner you come across a terrorist changing mags on his AK, Once again, since I fail to see how being WITHOUT a handgun in this instance would be a GOOD thing - somebody please inform me. Discuss.




Sure - if you were standing in the middle of that train station - and the terrorists came running thru the door gunning people down with full-auto fire - then you are probably dead. Having a pistol - or a rifle, with you is not going to make any difference. But then again - neither is having police "protection" - because they will probably be the first people gunned down.

I however DON'T think those who say that CCW would have done something against the Mumbai terrorists have a good point. You cannot possibly determine whether a pistol would be useless in each and every little circumstance that these people were caught in.

Again I will repeat: When you go down this road you are using the same line of reasoning that the anti-gunners use to say we should not have the right to own or use firearms. You ought to seriously think about what it is that you are advocating.

Until people have a vast change of philosophy all of these problems will continue. What has essentially happened is the whole argument about whether we as civilians even have the right to defend ourselves at all has become obfuscated with so many layers of bullshit that most people can't make heads or tails of the whole situation. Including a good portion of people in this thread.

Just for the record: I am not stuck in a "pistol paridigm". The 2nd amendment does not make a reference to pistols or rifles. The philosophical underpinnings of the 2nd amendment are that you as a free sovereign individual are free to defend yourself as you see fit. Assuming that the philosophy behind the 2nd amendment - or digging deeper - the concept of the natural right of self defense - is somehow an argument between pistols and rifles - is just obfuscation and BS in my book.

Stop thinking of the problem as a pistol vs. rifle problem. Start thinking of the issue as a " why are we as a people so ignorant that they can't see the benefit's of defending themselves" problem. Once you recognize the true nature of the problem - and accept the solution - then you can debate the proper tools to use for the job and the proper training you should seek. This is where the militia's would come in. If you go into any given town I am sure you could come across LOTS of people who belong to the local Rotary Club, or the Elks, or the local sports leagues, bowling leagues, etc. Chances are each of these people has spent countless hours playing around with their hobby, shooting the breeze behind the bar down at the local club, etc. The point of a "militia" is that there should be an institution whereby regular citizens learn how to defend themselves.

This is how it used to be. The new paradigm you speak of is not new at all. It would be a return to the mentality that made this country. Instead of spending your weekends drinking beer with the guys down at the Elks, you would be down at the local parade ground running drills - or at the local range keeping up your skills, or taking classes on how to handle situations - like Mumbai. These are what the term "well regulated" mean when applied to the militia. But nobody nowadays wants to do that - the feel like they pay their taxes and they should get police protection. The reality that should creep into their head every time something like Mumbai happens (that the police WON'T protect you) never registers. All they hear is LALALLALA in their head as they write a scathing email off to their congressman about how this is outrageous that we aren't protected. So your congressman votes on the latest multi trillion dollar appropriation for Homeland Security, gives some good speeches about the how the problem is all solved. The rubes are all placated - they go back to the football games and beer - and the next time a Mumbai type incident happens - they wonder why they weren't protected.

Rinse - wash - repeat.

The truly ambitious people actually get online and argue why guns wouldn't have protected us during the terrorist attack - and then spend countless hours online arguing about why their congressman is trying to take their guns away. They never see the connection.

 

[calsdad]

Israelis don't tote around M16s from what I understand about the environment there. Members of the civilian defense force have them on check out and leave them at home like switzerland (maybe the swiss is more permanent about ownership of the rifle but you got the point). Security guards may have sub-guns, etc but I do not believe regular citizens tote M16s around the streets.

God, I wish it wasn't winter when I was in Switzerland, I would have loved to see some of the things folks here have described about impromptu shooting matches on a sunny afternoon, etc.

Another argument made from the philosophy of "they don't do it so why should we".

And I don't remember anybody making any reference to "impromptu shooting matches" in Switzerland.

The same line of reasoning you use - is used by gun banners the world over - and the UN, when they say: people all over the world don't need handguns and to have civilians own rifles - why do you gun happy people in the US need to do it?

All of which is a false argument.

I think my mother once told me as a kid - if Bobby jumps off the roof - are you going to do it too?

Countries all around the world have adopted socialism, communism, and repressive regimes of all different flavors. Should that be a sufficient enough argument for us to do it here?

Authorities in England have recently started giving Sharia law equal footing as English common law - should we do that here?

Many Islamic countries allow a man to beat his wife - should we do that here?

So why should we give a flying shit what other countries do? The question is how to solve the problem - not what other countries are doing.

 

[clinotus]

Calsdad your frustration is because you have blinders on on the topic.

You use pistols to get to your rifles, its not the other way around.

15 people with CCWs may hiccup a strike team operation, but they wont stop it. The same 15 people with open carry may not be able to stop an organized and trained group either.

A higher ratio of people with CCWs may cause the attackers to rethink their plans, but someone hell bent on taking you out regardless of their own life is quite an individual to stop. Unless we further erode liberties.

I dont think anyone here being armed and watching that go down is going to just roll over and wait for their turn to smile at the muzzle flash, but I also dont expect anyone here to run into a bullet wall attempting to become a speedbump either.

The debate of pistols vs. rifles is one thing, but the argument seems to be more of response vs. preparation. Two entirely different debates that seem to be muddled here.

 

[calsdad]

Here is a good article about the realities of gun ownership in Israel:

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/derfner-people.htm

It is not that easy to get permission to own a firearm. Sounds like it is actually far easier to own firearms here in the US.

They do make mention of civilians with guns mistakenly shooting other civilians - or mentally unstable people using firearms to murder.

Both of these are one of the reasons why I feel that a militia would be useful. A true civilian militia would be a way for

Here is the part I found particularly relevant to the concept of a militia:

On the other hand, there are several cases in the current conflict of armed civilians shooting and killing actual terrorists at work, including terror shootings at Tel Aviv's Seafood Market restaurant, Beersheba, and Jerusalem's French Hill and Talpiot areas.

For this reason, the police are in favor of expanding the ranks of armed civilians. "The danger of friendly fire exists, but it's a trade-off," says Kleiman, maintaining that this danger was outweighed by the increased security that comes from having responsible armed civilians on the street to deter terrorists or stop them in the act. "A guy who served in an IDF combat unit, who has no criminal record, no health problems, who's well-trained in using a gun - we think it would be a good thing, on balance, if people like this could carry a gun on the street," he says.

If there were some sort of civilian force - call it a militia if you have to - that would vet, and train, and give guidance to it's members as to how to coordinate and react in situations like Mumbai, I fail to see how this would not be beneficial.

As the JPFO article points out - there are always crazy people who will get their hands on firearms. A civilian organization would potentially also serve the purpose of vetting people who would be allowed to carry firearms for self defense. There is usually no better determinant of who is a nutjob than your friends and neighbors.

 

[Gabe]

God love you, Calsdad. I appreciate your presence in these conversations because we need to have someone who consistently points to the heart of the matter. In my own defense, I raised the idea of reframing from "carrying versus not carrying," to "pistol versus rifle" because it represents a step in the right direction.

If we picture ourselves on a stairway to freedom, let's say we are all more or less on step #3 (antis are on step #0, either unaware of the stairway at all, or in fear of it). My modus operandi tends to be; let's get up to step #4 - and meanwhile you're up at step #7 or #8 yelling at us to hurry up! That's good, because we need to be cognizant that we are on step #3 and that there at least 4 or 5 more steps to go - not just one; but still, most of us can only take one step at a time. We've got short legs!

 

[terraformer]

Another argument made from the philosophy of "they don't do it so why should we".

And I don't remember anybody making any reference to "impromptu shooting matches" in Switzerland.

The same line of reasoning you use - is used by gun banners the world over - and the UN, when they say: people all over the world don't need handguns and to have civilians own rifles - why do you gun happy people in the US need to do it?

All of which is a false argument.

I think my mother once told me as a kid - if Bobby jumps off the roof - are you going to do it too?

Countries all around the world have adopted socialism, communism, and repressive regimes of all different flavors. Should that be a sufficient enough argument for us to do it here?

Authorities in England have recently started giving Sharia law equal footing as English common law - should we do that here?

Many Islamic countries allow a man to beat his wife - should we do that here?

So why should we give a flying shit what other countries do? The question is how to solve the problem - not what other countries are doing.

You completely, and I mean COMPLETELY, misread what I wrote. Gabe said "as in Isreal and other arab countries" and I corrected him that they don't do that. I NEVER advocated to not carry rifles openly, nor am I advocating to do so. I was simply correcting his underlying assumptions and as such was not employing any reasoning, false, misguided or otherwise. Your apology is accepted in advance.

It is up to you all to justify what you want to advocate for. I will justify what I want to advocate for when the time comes and you can be sure I won't rely on "Well, Bobby did it" as a justification, maybe as an example to illustrate effectiveness, but never as a justification.

Nothing about Switzerland in this thread, but there are others who have apparently lived there and say that shooting sports is very prevalent and one has described a sunday afternoon impromptu shooting match on an open field. YMMV as to the truthfulness of the statement, but I think it is rather progressive of a people to do such a thing and would love to experience that here without the fear and stigma that is associated with shooting sports.

Now I need to go beat my wife, she has been out of line lately and with Barak coming I guess it is OK now...

 

[Gabe]

...As the JPFO article points out - there are always crazy people who will get their hands on firearms. A civilian organization would potentially also serve the purpose of vetting people who would be allowed to carry firearms for self defense. There is usually no better determinant of who is a nutjob than your friends and neighbors.

Very true. Just another example of why the fears of sheep are unfounded. If we all of a sudden had complete freedom regarding firearms, of course we would self-regulate. No gunshop wanting to stay in business long would sell to an obvious loon or a child! We would rain hellfire down on the shop and they would have to shutter their operation and either move somewhere else or find a new business.

 

[Gabe]

...Gabe said "as in Isreal and other arab countries" and I corrected him that they don't do that....

Not for nothing, but I know people who live/work in Israel and they personally reported that people tote around their rifles. Whether they are civilians or not, I do not know. My understanding is that all young citizens must enlist for a time, and while they are enlisted it might be them who are carrying and not common civilians.

 

[terraformer]

My understanding is that all young citizens must enlist for a time, and while they are enlisted it might be them who are carrying and not common civilians.

I believe that may be the case. Basically like taking their laptop to work I think would best describe it. At least as I understand it from those I have known go through it.

They have very strict gun control laws, but far more of them carry than here person for person. That JFPO article stated 285K in 1995. Lets assume that is now 300K in 2008 (I bet that is understating it significantly) and all IDF officers and police are duty bound to carry off duty. So lets say that makes 500K (again, conservative) in a nation of 5 million Jews and another 2 million or so gentiles. Although Drgrant has pointed us to something that says all backgrounds can get authorized (and from what I have read, any gun owner is authorized, they don't make the distinction), lets say it is predominately Jews who do. That is 10% of the jewish population carrying. In MA, we 6.5 million and only 200K gun owners, with significantly less than that carrying and no requirement for police to carry off hours and no ability for military officers to do so without going through the civilian channels.

 

[wahsben]

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.

If you can escape yes, but if it looks like you can't and you get the guy with the machine gun than you take his machine gun. Also if the one you kill is the leader you may cause them enough confusion that more people can escape or take them down if armed.

 

[wahsben]

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.

Sargent York did a fine job with a pistol against riflemen.

 

[clinotus]

Sargent York did a fine job with a pistol against riflemen.

SARGENT.

Meaning that he was highly trained, not afraid of gun fire, and was able to commit. These present day scenarios are asking every day people to do the same which is a task for which they are greatly unprepared for.

Look, I'm not saying that a person with a pistol cannot effect change, major wars have been fought from the shot of a pistol and ended with the shot of a pistol. However for the most part a pistol on an actual battle field is a toothpick next to a sequoia.

Does this mean that we should give up?
Not at all.

Does this mean that we should cower in the face of death?
Not at all.

Does this mean that we should go with the law of averages and assume that the personal weapon will no nothing to curb or pause a spree?
Not at all.

Should we continue thinking that the pipe dream of every citizen with a high capacity magazine and a steady grip on a pistol can defeat a trained riflemen?
NO.

Because the reality of the situation is that that person is outgunned not just in rate of fire, but in terms of operational theater. Putting people with pistols against someone with a rifle, intent on killing the most people as possible, is a killing zone for that small minority. I think its foolhardy to deny this.

As was mentioned we need a mindset change, so that those who would carry out such acts start to think twice about doing so. If Mr. Martyr plans on taking out 30 people at the mall as a successful operation, he needs to understand that perhaps half of those 30 will be shooting back unless he gets the drop on them -which he can do with a rifle and some body armor since he is acting outside of the pistols theater. Not many casual shooters can make headshots from 50 yards.

I'm just saying that despite the dream of all of us being able to react, there are going to be scenarios where there is nothing we can do but thwart, hunker down, and await heavy support.

 

[Erebus]

I am speaking to the specific event of the Mumbai attacks. These attackers were well trained and had combat experience. If you underestimate the value of that you will pay the price. My whole point is that when you are out numbered and out gunned in this fashion you better be able to determine when is the right time to fight, flee or hide. If you are cornered and have no where to go or hide it's an easy decision. If you have the option to flee or hide in the circumstances of the Mumbai attacks if you want to live through it you should flee or hide.

Someone mentioned people hiding in their hotel rooms, many people survived that way. If you were in your hotel room and heard shouting and shooting in the hall are you going to grab your pistol and run out into the hallway? Or are you going to take a defensive position and hope they don't get through your door?

In the open areas they were hitting quickly and moving on. Getting down and playing dead or hiding behind something will likely yield a better chance of survival than firing at them and drawing their attention and with it their fire.

Ultimately carrying weapons is about survival. And knowing when to use it and when not to use it is key.

 

[mikem317]

I caught this on John Lott's blog.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com

The evidence is now irrefutable. Lawful, private citizens need to be able to be armed.

 

[wahsben]

SARGENT.

Meaning that he was highly trained, not afraid of gun fire, and was able to commit. These present day scenarios are asking every day people to do the same which is a task for which they are greatly unprepared for.

Look, I'm not saying that a person with a pistol cannot effect change, major wars have been fought from the shot of a pistol and ended with the shot of a pistol. However for the most part a pistol on an actual battle field is a toothpick next to a sequoia.

Does this mean that we should give up?
Not at all.

Does this mean that we should cower in the face of death?
Not at all.

Does this mean that we should go with the law of averages and assume that the personal weapon will no nothing to curb or pause a spree?
Not at all.

Should we continue thinking that the pipe dream of every citizen with a high capacity magazine and a steady grip on a pistol can defeat a trained riflemen?
NO.

Because the reality of the situation is that that person is outgunned not just in rate of fire, but in terms of operational theater. Putting people with pistols against someone with a rifle, intent on killing the most people as possible, is a killing zone for that small minority. I think its foolhardy to deny this.

As was mentioned we need a mindset change, so that those who would carry out such acts start to think twice about doing so. If Mr. Martyr plans on taking out 30 people at the mall as a successful operation, he needs to understand that perhaps half of those 30 will be shooting back unless he gets the drop on them -which he can do with a rifle and some body armor since he is acting outside of the pistols theater. Not many casual shooters can make headshots from 50 yards.

I'm just saying that despite the dream of all of us being able to react, there are going to be scenarios where there is nothing we can do but thwart, hunker down, and await heavy support.

Actually I'm not too sure there was heavy training with the 45 in any war but Sgt. York was skilled with firearms before he went in. Also I am pretty sure that your average infantryman did mostly just bullseye shooting back then.
Is a pistol a good weapon against a rifle? No, but can it make a difference? Yes
My position is that anyone who chooses to be armed may do so.There are no guarentees but meeting armed resistance when you are not expecting any can definetly put a dent in someones plans. Also if you drop the person with the rifle and you can you take their rifle and now you are on more equal footing.

 

[ddlopessr]

Standing and fighting you have no chance of surviving?
Wow I wonder if the men in 1775-1783 had though like this if we might have a strong british accent? lets remember this was semi trained milita against who was at the time the greatest army in the world ,most highly trained, well armed, well supplied, It makes me wonder they thought about pistols vs. rifles or rifles vs pikes or did they think about the bigger picture?

 

[terraformer]

Standing and fighting you have no chance of surviving.
Wow I wonder if the men in 1775-1783 had though like this if we might have a strong british accent? lets remember this was semi trained milita against who was at the time the greatest army in the world ,most highly trained, well armed, well supplied...

Yeah, and that is why the yanks hid behind trees, sniped and fired & ran against small british patrols instead of going up against the brits on open battle fields. The Brits thought the Americans were cowards for fighting the way they did and yet, that is the same way we fight today, to survive. Granted, on occasion we fought out in the open but many times we did not.

 

[bambame2]

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.

BS If I have to die I'm taking someone with me.

 

[Jose]

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.

If every soldier in the US Army thought that way we would have lost a hell of a lot more wars than we have.

A lot of soldiers and Marines have died in just that very way, against overwhelming odds. And sometimes that sacrifice is, or is part of, what turns the tide.

 

[Erebus]

BS If I have to die I'm taking someone with me.

I already covered that.

If you are cornered and have no where to go or hide it's an easy decision.

If every soldier in the US Army thought that way we would have lost a hell of a lot more wars than we have.

A lot of soldiers and Marines have died in just that very way, against overwhelming odds. And sometimes that sacrifice is, or is part of, what turns the tide.

We aren't talking about storming Iwo Jima or holding Hamburger Hill, we are talking about getting caught up in a terror attack at a mall or some such place. Also those Marines were trained and similarly armed.

We aren't trying to win a battle we are trying to keep ourselves and our families alive.

 

[Jose]

Standing and fighting you have no chance of surviving?

Against today's tactics, that is correct. Movement is life. I do not bother training with people who advocate a stand-and-deliver approach to gunfights.

 

[MaverickNH]

Almost all of the comments from British & Australian posters were pro-gun (as were the US posts, naturally). That in itself seems more important than a discussion of whether CCW would have prevented Mumbai or not.