British soldier could have been saved...

Status
Not open for further replies.
TennJed You can never back up any claim of "well this could have been prevented IF", but you don't back down from the possibility that a gun may have prevented the incident and just roll over.

Finding better arguments for less gun control is not rolling over. Yes I believe it is better to have a gun than not. But this incident is not a good one to beat our drum to. There are incidents of guns being used in self defense everyday. We should talk about those more and these less.

Tell an anti that a citizen with a gun would have stopped this and they will counter that is the nut jobs had guns they would have killed more than one soldier. Using maybes as an argument doesn't tend to do anything but create circles
 
I think too many of us are too quick to judge how we would react if we saw something like this happen in front of us. I doubt very much that anyone posting in this thread has ever witnessed something of this magnitude happen in person.

You can blame the British people all you want and you can point fingers at the people that were there and didn't run to the victims aid but unless you can say that you have been in a similar situation then all you are doing is speculating on how you would react.

The fact that Britain has harsh gun laws really doesn't make any difference in this situation. Even if guns were allowed to be carried by civilians in Britain that doesn't mean that any of the bystanders would have been armed or that they would have used a gun to stop what happened. This same thing could have happened in a gun friendly State here in the US but that doesn't mean that the situation would have ended any differently and that a crowd of Americans would act any differently than a crowd of Brits.
 
Very few instances of someone with a gun stopping a crime ever make the news so the vast majority of people never hear of it, but everyone hears about the mass shootings of innocent people that occur. If we waited for a "good guy with gun stops crime" incident to occur we'd never have anything to debate the anti-gun crowd with. As far as stepping up and helping someone in need of help, if you have the means to stop the crime then do so. I'd like to think most of us haven't turned into a flock of sheep.
 
Very few instances of someone with a gun stopping a crime ever make the news so the vast majority of people never hear of it, but everyone hears about the mass shootings of innocent people that occur. If we waited for a "good guy with gun stops crime" incident to occur we'd never have anything to debate the anti-gun crowd with. As far as stepping up and helping someone in need of help, if you have the means to stop the crime then do so. I'd like to think most of us haven't turned into a flock of sheep.
I understand your point, but it is not true about SD examples not making the news. Saying "oh well no one talks about them so why bother" is kinda like rolling over don't you think ;) They do make at least local news. It is part out fault no one hears about them, because we have multiple page threads daily on this stuff, but not the others. WE need to set the example for others to follow. I would like to see a sticky of separate forum just for these local news stories. That is what we need to be talking about to the antis.

And what if the attackers had guns instead of knives?
 
Without a gun or group of people assisting with improvised weapons, I would think I would be looking to leave the scene.

Running a guy down and beheading him is serious violence. Fight or flight...those bad guys could have had any number of things in mind, including other bystanders.
 
hs0 your post is exactly what the anti-gun groups say when the NRA and pro-gun groups suggest putting armed guards in schools to stop gunmen and protect the kids. I find your reasoning very troubling!!!

If you've never seen (or experienced) a truly violent attack occur firsthand, it can be more than a little amazing how fast it starts and ends.

Disbelief on the part of a victim (and many witnesses) of what's happening right NOW, as well as a probable lack of a properly ingrained, trained response for many folks ... as well as being "behind the curve" in reacting to an action ... lends more than a little practicality to hso's comments. That doesn't make it "for or against" gun control. It's just the way things sometimes turn out.

Even trained & armed people can all-too-easily become unwilling victims, though.

I don't offer these thoughts lightly, having been involved in martial arts since '71, having carried a badge for 30 years and having been a LE firearms instructor for more than 22 of those years.

Tragic instances of horrific violence such as this evoke strong reactions and emotions, obviously.

Fortunately, in this particular instance the bystanders were fortunate indeed that there apparently hadn't been any plans for taking advantage of the crowd's reaction to create "secondary" victims.
 
What is thoroughly disturbing to me is watching the video of the attacker holding the knives, covered in blood, talking to the camera person, and seeing all of the people in the background doing absolutely nothing for the victim. Nothing. No one tried to render aid, no one tried to subdue the attackers, everyone just stood around and watched a man die.

That shows me that the entire society is fouled-up beyond recognition.

ETA: As an aside, didn't the British government ban sharp pointy knives for this very reason? And I thought that violent crime wasn't supposed to happen once all the guns were gone... oh wait...

This.

This is nearly as disturbing as the murder itself. They stood there and watched and did nothing. And they are the same people who insist that the US must be just like them and remove firearms from citizens. The whole thing is repulsive.
 
So are we going to start a thread every time someone gets murdered in public, in a place where people aren't allowed to carry or own?

England is an oppressive place and the vast majority of the entire world is filled with apathetic people....... we know....... preaching to the quire.

Sorry, I just see a lot of these.

Why not? Why not point it out evertime it happens? Are we in the US to be as apathetic as they?

BTW, it's preaching to the choir.
 
You cannot say anything most assuredly would have happened. You don't know if the person carrying would have had any context from which to make a decision to use deadly force on behalf of a third party. An armed citizen MAY have had a chance to help before the police showed up, they also may not have. Incidents like this never happen the smae way twice.

Horrible violent acts still occur in America, even in the open in places citizens are allowed to carry. Guns neither cause nor prevent crime. Crime is a socio-economic problem, not a gun problem.

Carry to save yourself. They world is way down on the list.
 
I agree, start a thread, talk it up, preach to the choir, then maybe the choir will preach to the non-members. Talk up the "good guy with gun stops crime" as well as the "a gun may have stopped or lessened the horror of this crime". Do what the anti's do, take advantage of every tragedy to advance your agenda! Step up when you have the means and help your fellow man.
 
Now lets see how Piers spins this one.
He's going to use the same spin he always has.

He loves to quote how few gun murders they've had in Britain.
He does not want to talk about Britain being listed as the 2nd most violent Euro country since they've completely disarmed the populace.

One of the few folks that called him on it was Larry Pratt, and Piers quickly moved the conversation along (he does not want to acknowledge the violence rate in Britain) by changing the subject, or not answering the question / point put forth by Pratt.

The BGs love it when the population is disarmed - it tips the balance of power heavily back in their favor.
They don't care about your gun laws, and if they don't use a gun, they'll travel in packs and continue to use numbers (and their weapon of choice) to overwhelm their victims.
 
I was sitting at the pub with my friend when this story was breaking on TV. I was saddened but not surprised when I saw the footage of people just standing around. But let's be honest, what can you do in that situation? I certainly wouldn't approach and confront two men who were going beserk with a machete. Not without a gun. So I made the remark of "and this is why I want the option to carry a gun", which started a debate with said friend.

He said that this was a lone unfortunate incident, and that he would still feel safer if everyone wasn't carrying guns, as then it would be like the wild west. I pointed out that shootouts don't just happen over the most trivial of things in the US. I noted that it took armed response 20 minutes to show up, and there were regular police hiding around the corner who couldn't intervene. He said it was the unfortunate price to pay for having a safer society with lower murder rates. At which point I gave up. The problem is, most of my fellow countrymen are just like him, through years and years of brainwashing, they just don't know any better. And it's the same reason why I believe there's no future for the gun owners of Britain.
 
I have been thinking about this quite a bit. I witnessed a man trying to kill a woman with a large knife in a Johannesburg shopping mall once, and I intervened (by firing a warning shot into an escalator) to make sure the woman wasn't stabbed again. Plenty things I learned that day: not just about tactics, but about myself. Here's what I know:

1) The goblin had a double-edged knife which he held blade down and struck this woman very hard in the root of the neck. I couldn't see where the blade went because it was on the other side of the woman's neck and I was standing sideways of her. All I know is she dropped straight away. If the knife had found its mark it is quite possible the woman would have died whether I intervened or not.

2) I got the goblin's attention which prevented further stabs. I was about 15-20 yards away if I remember correctly but all I had was a Baby Browning. I wanted him stopped but safe direction of fire was scant, and I took the decision to fire a round into a corner escalator. If this happened again I would do things differently.

3) The goblin turned and ran and I ended up chasing him through Hillbrow (about two blocks) before I caught up with him and there was a brief evaluation of both of our situations and he dropped the knife and got taken in by store staff.

On balance I think if it is a frenzied attack by two guys with machetes and they already have the victim down, the outcome is going to be very poor for the victim.
Having said that, I have seen my fair share of machete (or "panga") victims in Johannesburg, and there are those who have got away and survived. One of them was in a similar situation where three or four goblins attacked him with pangas and tried to cut his head off. They hacked the back of his neck so that a wedge of tissue was removed all the way down to the spinous process of C4. When the patient was lying supine on the trolley, I could see the other radiographer's face through the victim's neck.

I have to say on balance in this situation there is not much that could have been done for the soldier. The chances for survival would be slim: you would need a person right there at the scene who already cleared leather before the goblins got out the car and who already had a clear shot and who already had the determination to absolutely and finally stop these men. I think that is a tough ask in any country, not just in England.

However, I have to side with those who criticized the crowd's reaction after the killing. Here you have two goblins bouncing around in front of a camera with the weapons of death still at hand, standing free amongst the innocents, having just killed a man.
What I would like to have seen is a mob encircling these vermin, with whatever tools they could get at hand.
There are stores and cars accessible, if it was me I would be looking for weapons FAST. A wheel spanner, a tyre iron, a fire extinguisher, an old man's walking stick. Something you took from a shop, even a can of beans or an umbrella would have been better than nothing. The disturbing thing to me is the inaction after the man was killed and the threat was still present. I am not saying anyone should have tried to tackle these men straight away, but at least arm yourself with whatever you can get.

That's the nucleus of the debate: the fact that physical defense wasn't even on the radar when these evil men had already demonstrated their intent.

There is one variable of note: and that is I have had my thinking changed about what to do in a situation like that because I have previous experience. I have replayed what happened in Johannesburg hundreds of times and I have discussed the incident on TFL. That's a good thing, plenty things I would change if I could do it over again. I also have an appreciation of what could happen to me if I get it wrong, I have seen the wounds and they make me very cautious.

But the bottom line is, it is very difficult to predict what you will do in a situation you haven't faced before.
When there has been harm to one and if you intervene, such harm could be on you also, your thought processes out there on the scene may be very different from what you think whilst sitting there at your keyboard!
 
The laws of the country have neutered the populace's ability to defend themselves. It starts by removing the tools, and soon after, the people will lose the mindset of self defence as well. I have spoken to multiple people who told me that they would rather just give up and die, than fight back against an attacker. Even in their own home.
 
What if some armed citizen(s) had either shot and killed or held the attackers at bay?
I bet bystanders would have been less afraid to try and help the victim.
I'm not saying that he would have lived if the witnesses had guns, but it would certainly have changed the odds.
It took 20 minutes for control of the situation to pass from the bad guys to the good guys.
It is only by luck that the attackers decided to stop when they did.
 
It is 2013 and we are dealing with Islamofascists from the 6th century. Unbelievable.

Hopefully the politically correct fraidy cats of the world will take this sterling example of arrogance and stupidity and finally see these crazed zealots for who they really are.
 
What if the terrorists had shot the soldier?

That sounds like the naive argument of an anti.
I'm from England (though I now live in the States) and believe me, if they had had some particular reason to want to use a handgun, they could have got one in London very easily.
My guess is that they chose to use machetes because they are cheap, effective, and gruesome.
 
I doubt that anyone, even armed and ready, could have reacted quickly enough to save the victim in this case, but I do know that if the killers had wanted to create maximum mayhem, and would have started attacking others in the vicinity, an armed bystander could have made a major difference. If I am armed and witnessed such an attack, whether or not I could help the victim is not the issue to me. What I could do is to use my weapon to lessen the chances of me or someone with me becoming a second or subsequent victim. There are numerous situations documented in Israel where violence is initiated by a terrorist, with any variety of weapons, but the violence is limited due to a bystander reacting with a gun and thus limiting the damage done by the terrorist. The people in London are lucky that these animals chose only to kill one person, and then to stay in the area to make their political point, rather than to follow up with attacking anyone within reach. In the UK, I am sure the killers were totally confident that not only would they not have to face citizens with guns, they would not have to face citizens with knives or even citizens who are ready to react with any violent defense. My guess is that there are many places in the USA where the outcome would be similar, with passersby taking out their cell phones to video the incident rather than trying to stop the violence or help the victim; places like New York City, Washington, Boston or other places where the populace has long been conditioned to not carry weapons and count on the police and only the police to intervene. I doubt it would happen this way in places where at least a portion of the population is carrying a gun and the mentality of the people has not yet deteriorated to being adverse to taking individual action.
 
Remember that great line delivered by Sean Connery in The Untouchables?

"They pull a knife, you pull a camera. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send the bill to the NHS. That's the London way!"

Or something like that…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top