London attacks

[mbok1947]

I am sure it has occurred to a great many people here that, given the circumstances of the most recent Islamic terror attacks on London Bridge (three attackers armed only with knives, exiting a vehicle and remaining close together), that just one CCW holder with only a 5-shot snubbie could conceivably have neutralized all three before most or all fatalities occurred. The police response time was noted as eight minutes, following the initial attack with the vehicle, and the armed officers placed a reported 50 shots on target. Some victims did resist before they arrived by throwing objects and running, but it was pretty much "slaughter who you will" for those right minutes.

One person with a handgun and the balls to use it could have closed the distance rapidly and, in all the chaos inherent to such an event, brought all three terrorists into fairly easy range almost immediately.

The Brits decided against firearms long ago. The ISIS types know this and are well aware that even in a suicide attack they will have plenty of time to cause mass casualties before anyone with the true wherewithal to stop them can arrive on scene.

 

[harrygunner]

I've been looking at expandable batons for situations where attackers are close.

Better to block with a metal staff than my arms against machetes and knives.

Not a legal option for residents where these attacks are most likely to occur. So far, the Brits think censoring the Internet will stop these attacks. And NY and CA in the U.S. don't think batons are appropriate.

I'm considering the S&W 16" baton as a reasonable compromise between effectiveness and portability.

 

[Axis II]

I've been looking at expandable batons for situations where attackers are close.

Better to block with a metal staff than my arms against machetes and knives.

Not a legal option for residents where these attacks are most likely to occur. So far, the Brits think censoring the Internet will stop these attacks. And NY and CA in the U.S. don't think batons are appropriate.

I'm considering the S&W 16" baton as a reasonable compromise between effectiveness and portability.

don't get caught with it or hit someone with it. when i began working for metro housing authority i was told by a 35yr veteran police officer that it wasn't a good idea to carry the baton because he hit someone with one and the prosecutor said he hit the suspect with a steel stick and tried to hang the cop. I know someone also pulled over and vehicle searched and found the baton and gave him all kinds of crap.

 

[harrygunner]

In several states, mine included, a CCW permit covers all weapons.

Hopefully, the threat Britain is dealing with will lead to better reasoning within all legislative bodies here in the States. Such attacks will arrive here. (Some actually have and been downplayed.)

I should remind all that close quarter training is important for us who carry guns. If the attack starts with the assailant close by, going for your gun is usually the wrong thing to do. You'll need to thwart the initial attack and create distance before drawing. Hard to do with flesh if the attacker is using a machete.

 

[gspn]

If guns were legal there the terrorists wouldn't have exited the van with just knives. In that case the single CCW in your example faces a much different situation.

 

[lemaymiami]

I suspect that walking canes will begin to come back into style in a country where just owning a single firearm has you going over hurdles (and I seriously doubt that will change any time soon...). My wife (who's from London) and I argued a bit recently about whether the UK needs to put up pedestrian barriers on bridges with heavy foot traffic (my contention was that it's just too easy to roll up a score of casualties with any vehicle if barricades aren't present)...nothing fancy, simply a strong physical barrier between pedestrians and close- by vehicles to prevent this type of attack from succeeding.... As you can guess my point view didn't impress my wife at all.... I'll be interested to see whether any of those famous London bridges will get some protection now - after the second incident there...


Here's a tip for anyone caught in something like this - but inside a restaurant, pub, or cafe.... An ordinary chair is very effective against a knife attack (you don't attack with the chair - simply keep it feet first in the attackers face like a circus lion tamer..). I learned that the hard way in a violent confrontation in my Department's holding cell where three or four of us were confronted by a very angry female - armed with a chair of all things.... None of us wanted to be the first to get hit by her so it was a momentary stand-off until one of our guys (a former jail officer) simply picked up another chair and quickly pinned her to the wall, preventing her from swinging the chair she had at anything.... He later told us that a chair against a knife wielder in a close quarters scramble was a very handy technique....

Needless to say, shortly after that incident my Department went to bolted down benches for that holding cage....

I have a fair number of in-laws residing in and around London so these attacks hit too close to home..... I hope they're actually able to get down to business with these kind of threats....

 

[Mizar]

Armed police was there only 8 minutes after the attack started, all three terrorists were shot dead and the "victims" actually engaged the attackers with improvised weapons. Chairs included, actually! Given the circumstances I would say, that those brits showed some balls that many other people from much more fortunate countries failed to do so in similar events. After every mass shooting in the US (sadly, I already lost the count of them) someone starts to dream about the mythical CCW holder, but he is yet to come. And that should ring a bell. The only country where we regularly see CCW holders actually preventing terrorist attacks, or at least limit the consequences of one, is the State of Israel. And that should ring the bell again... Like mindset, or Cooper's color codes, or preparedness, that sort of stuff...

 

[Zaydok Allen]

We go through this almost every time there is an attack on a country where the populace is not commonly armed. Could a CCW holder have made a difference? Maybe. The final outcome is pure conjecture though, and speculation never gets us anywhere on this topic.

 

[shafter]

Who can say for sure? I think the likelihood of the attackers exiting their vehicles with rifles or shotguns goes way up. In that case the guy with the snubbie doesn't have much of a chance.

Not to mention of enough attackers get shot by the good guys they'll just change their tactics and start using bombs.

 

[Wisco]

just one CCW holder with only a 5-shot snubbie could conceivably have neutralized all three before most or all fatalities occurred.

Possibly, but not probably.

That's a lot of targets to shoot up before they hack you to death.

People shot with 5.56 rounds out of M4 carbines don't always immediately stop with 2 rounds center of mass. So you train for 2, assess, then 2 more + 1 to the mouth if you can. Assess. Repeat.

The snubby scenario would leave me possibly empty on just one target while the two not being shot have time to coordinate. A 15 round semiauto could leave me empty on three targets.

Not all your rounds are likely to hit. That's almost a certainty in a dynamic situation for someone that isn't professional (think JSOC).

I know for a fact I didn't/don't make hits on every target at which I've shot in realistic training or actual combat.

No offense, but a CCW against multiple armed attackers is almost total fantasy. It happens, but not often enough I could point to a time.

 

[wally]

Who can say for sure? I think the likelihood of the attackers exiting their vehicles with rifles or shotguns goes way up.

Happened in Garland, Texas in 2015. It wasn't a CCW, but an armed police officer at the scene who was "blitz attacked" when the terrorist's car drove along side, basically saved the day until SWAT arrived.

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

 

[jim in Anchorage]

If guns were legal there the terrorists wouldn't have exited the van with just knives. In that case the single CCW in your example faces a much different situation.

Thank goodness the dead were killed with knives not guns. Much more civilized.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

gspn post #5: If guns were legal there the terrorists wouldn't have exited the van with just knives.
There are several millions of legal firearms in Britain. The 1996-1997 bans affected legal handguns. According to the British Home Office Research Study #298 Gun crime: the market in and use of illegal firearms * (about ten years after the handgun ban) British criminals said they could acquire an illegal firearm within a week of release from jail from street sources, especially from criminal "armourers" who specialize in smuggling guns, fencing stolen guns, repairing or modifying old guns, reactivating dewats, converting blank guns, building zip huns from airsoft guns, etc.
British criminals can make black market contacts. The ban on handguns made a pistol the fashion accessory among the Brits who emulate American gangsta rap culture. Maybe jihadists in Britain can't make black market connections. I suspect jihadis are willing to do the truck-and-knife-and-bomb-vest attacks because they are basically assured that no one in public will be armed in self-defense. Armed police need to be called up and are usually not on street patrol. I suspect if by accident armed British criminals encountered a jihadi terror attack they would not engage but would retreat.

* http://www.ligali.org/pdf/home_office_gun_crime_the_market_in_and_use_of_illegal_firearms.pdf

 

[old lady new shooter]

I am sure it has occurred to a great many people here that, given the circumstances of the most recent Islamic terror attacks on London Bridge (three attackers armed only with knives, exiting a vehicle and remaining close together), that just one CCW holder with only a 5-shot snubbie could conceivably have neutralized all three before most or all fatalities occurred. The police response time was noted as eight minutes, following the initial attack with the vehicle, and the armed officers placed a reported 50 shots on target. Some victims did resist before they arrived by throwing objects and running, but it was pretty much "slaughter who you will" for those right minutes.

One person with a handgun and the balls to use it could have closed the distance rapidly and, in all the chaos inherent to such an event, brought all three terrorists into fairly easy range almost immediately.

The Brits decided against firearms long ago. The ISIS types know this and are well aware that even in a suicide attack they will have plenty of time to cause mass casualties before anyone with the true wherewithal to stop them can arrive on scene.

While I agree 100% about going armed, for clarification I would like to point out that the 8 minutes was not how long it took the police to arrive, but how long it took them to arrive and kill the terrorists.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I've been looking at expandable batons for situations where attackers are close.

Better to block with a metal staff than my arms against machetes and knives.

Not a legal option for residents where these attacks are most likely to occur. So far, the Brits think censoring the Internet will stop these attacks. And NY and CA in the U.S. don't think batons are appropriate.

I'm considering the S&W 16" baton as a reasonable compromise between effectiveness and portability.

One police officer on the scene went against all three terrorists armed only with his baton. He got cut up pretty good but last I heard he is thank G-d recuperating OK. Can you imagine, something like 90% of police officers in UK do not carry a firearm?!?!?

 

[old lady new shooter]

I suspect that walking canes will begin to come back into style in a country where just owning a single firearm has you going over hurdles (and I seriously doubt that will change any time soon...). My wife (who's from London) and I argued a bit recently about whether the UK needs to put up pedestrian barriers on bridges with heavy foot traffic (my contention was that it's just too easy to roll up a score of casualties with any vehicle if barricades aren't present)...nothing fancy, simply a strong physical barrier between pedestrians and close- by vehicles to prevent this type of attack from succeeding.... As you can guess my point view didn't impress my wife at all.... I'll be interested to see whether any of those famous London bridges will get some protection now - after the second incident there...


Here's a tip for anyone caught in something like this - but inside a restaurant, pub, or cafe.... An ordinary chair is very effective against a knife attack (you don't attack with the chair - simply keep it feet first in the attackers face like a circus lion tamer..). I learned that the hard way in a violent confrontation in my Department's holding cell where three or four of us were confronted by a very angry female - armed with a chair of all things.... None of us wanted to be the first to get hit by her so it was a momentary stand-off until one of our guys (a former jail officer) simply picked up another chair and quickly pinned her to the wall, preventing her from swinging the chair she had at anything.... He later told us that a chair against a knife wielder in a close quarters scramble was a very handy technique....

Needless to say, shortly after that incident my Department went to bolted down benches for that holding cage....

I have a fair number of in-laws residing in and around London so these attacks hit too close to home..... I hope they're actually able to get down to business with these kind of threats....

A shopping cart is also a good weapon if something happens in a grocery store, I saw a video from Israel where a good guy actually stopped a knife-wielding terrorist by pushing a shopping cart into him, pinning him to the wall.

 

[Zoogster]

I hate to play into the anti-gun sentiment but if multiple men make the decision to die for a perceived religious purpose and do something organized on their way out then I think they wouldn't have knives in our country.
This has typically been true in similar attacks here, and is likely to be true in the future, and is likely to play a big role in our firearm rights discussions in the future.
In California the state has already used our last Islamic firearm armed couple that went killing people as the excuse to ban tons of firearms and firearms in the most common previously California legal configuration.

I expect to see it become an issue on the national front at some point. Muslims are projected to make up nearly 10% of the population in the not so distant future and if even a small percent turn radical it is likely to be a much bigger issue and more frequent than anything you see now.
Europe is starting to experience it as they have had a huge number of Muslims coming steadily for a good decade, even before the Syrian crisis.

 

[Hanzo581]

Yeah, I think the overlooked thing in most of these scenarios is the difference in a mortal wound and an incapacitating one.

I would not want to engage three knife wielding men with a five shot revolver. But I'd certainly choose it over nothing.

 

[OC-Trainer]

No offense, but a CCW against multiple armed attackers is almost total fantasy. It happens, but not often enough I could point to a time.

After every mass shooting in the US (sadly, I already lost the count of them) someone starts to dream about the mythical CCW holder, but he is yet to come.

Quoted for truth.

Let's be honest - history has shown (in the US, at least) that the armed, non LEO/military citizen, is almost always a non-factor in terrorist attacks and mass shooting (FBI definition).

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yeah, I think the overlooked thing in most of these scenarios is the difference in a mortal would and an incapacitating one.

I would not want to engage three knife wielding men with a five shot revolver. But I'd certainly choose it over nothing.

And nothing is exactly what the victims had -- except the cop, who had a baton.

 

[gspn]

Thank goodness the dead were killed with knives not guns. Much more civilized.

What's the basis for your comment?

Nobody said anything about civility or the manner of death. My statement was that it's unrealistic to create a hypothetical situation where only one side is allowed to have the gun. Your comment on civility is pointless when referencing my statement.

 

[Snyper]

speculation never gets us anywhere on this topic.

But without it there would be no internet forums.

 

[Snyper]

Wisco said: ↑
No offense, but a CCW against multiple armed attackers is almost total fantasy. It happens, but not often enough I could point to a time.

The fact that it's not common doesn't make it a fantasy.
Maybe if it became more common there would be fewer attacks of this nature.

 

[Snyper]

Vern Humphrey said:
And nothing is exactly what the victims had -- except the cop, who had a baton.

At least one victim fought back by throwing things at them such as a chair.
Anything can become a weapon with a little imagination.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

At least one victim fought back by throwing things at them such as a chair.
Anything can become a weapon with a little imagination.

True. But in a life-or-death situation, do you WANT to trust your life to finding a makeshift weapon readily to hand?