London attacks

[PT92]

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.

Yup--there's a reason our brilliant, clairvoyant Founding Fathers understood the need to break away from the King...First and foremost are the freedoms that are had and protected via the rights of the people to bear arms, something of which to the very day some 241 years ago America established and set forth accordingly a Republic unique in the history of Mankind.

No to be either guilty of oversimplification and or being overly-dramatic, it's really that simple in that Britain decided differently precisely what Freedom entails centuries ago and they are paying the painful price of such to this very day.

 

[Snyper]

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

What I "want" has nothing to do with this specific situation, nor any other where people cannot carry firearms or other actual weapons.

To say "they had nothing" simply isn't factual.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What I "want" has nothing to do with this specific situation, nor any other where people cannot carry firearms or other actual weapons.

To say "they had nothing" simply isn't factual.

Actually, what you "want" has a lot to do with it. As I have said many times, most disasters happen because people PLAN to have a disaster. If you find yourself in a situation where you have nothing but what you can pick up to defend yourself, it's be cause you, or someone else PLANNED it that way. In other words, decisions made long before the critical incident dramatically affected your survival potential.

 

[RPZ]

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

This is no BS. Almost - almost - anything can be used, using your brain, as a weapon This is not a new subject so we need not go to deeply into it here. Not to say a handgun is not better than many improvised weapons, and if I had my way anyone not incarcerated the world over would be able to carry one. However, if I were to zero on ideal for this and other attacks I would choose a rifle. Someone with a rifle could have ended this decisively with three rounds, and mopped up easily.

 

[Snyper]

Actually, what you "want" has a lot to do with it. As I have said many times, most disasters happen because people PLAN to have a disaster. If you find yourself in a situation where you have nothing but what you can pick up to defend yourself, it's be cause you, or someone else PLANNED it that way. In other words, decisions made long before the critical incident dramatically affected your survival potential.

Again, none of that has to do with my single comment about whether or not those people "had nothing".

In this case, the Govt "planned" it so no one there could legally be armed with actual weapons, which means the people had no real choice.

Planning for future events is another topic altogether.

 

[MedWheeler]

Mizar writes:

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.

Given that an overwhelming majority of firearms-related terrorist attacks, as well as the "random-type" mass-shootings, that occur within the USA do so in places in which citizens are prohibited from bearing firearms themselves, I would not dare to say that the presence of, or possible presence of, concealed-carriers doesn't prevent terrorist attacks. It's hard to gauge just how many such attacks may have been prevented in those areas in which citizens are permitted to be armed, but I bet it's a factor.

EDIT: I see you are in Bulgaria. I cannot comment on the armed-citizen culture there, as I am not familiar with it. But, I do own a pretty fine specimen of your Makarov pistols!

 

[RPZ]

Mizar writes:



Given that an overwhelming majority of firearms-related terrorist attacks, as well as the "random-type" mass-shootings, that occur within the USA do so in places in which citizens are prohibited from bearing firearms themselves, I would not dare to say that the presence of, or possible presence of, concealed-carriers doesn't prevent terrorist attacks. It's hard to gauge just how many such attacks may have been prevented in those areas in which citizens are permitted to be armed, but I bet it's a factor.

EDIT: I see you are in Bulgaria. I cannot comment on the armed-citizen culture there, as I am not familiar with it. But, I do own a pretty fine specimen of your Makarov pistols!

We need saturation. As yet we do not have that in most states.

 

[MedWheeler]

^^ This is true, but we're working on it, right?

 

[Robert]

Wild speculation and what if have never had a home on THR.