It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How would legal gun ownership protect citizens from a terrorist attack?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I am asking the above question because I really would like to understand the thinking when certain members say things like "thats why we want to keep our guns", "should have gun ownership and maybe more would have survived".

I've seen comments like this many times recently in view of the terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels and in America but what has made me pose the question is that I have just today seen video footage of the shooter on Capitol Hill yesterday. In it, understandably, everyone is panicking and running in every direction to try and hide or run away. In fact they were acting exactly the same as citizens would in Countries where guns arent legal.

By the way I'm not suggesting I'm anti gun nor am I saying there shouldnt be legal gun ownership I'm just interested how citizens believe having a gun would protect them.

Take for instance the shooter in Paris outside the cafe. He just opened fire suddenly without warning with an AK47. Many died. Would the outcome of that scenario been any different if someone at the cafe had a gun. I don't believe so because the most natural thing to do is run and hide and in any event the people outside wouldnt have had the time to react.

Then look at the concert hall where they were being shot one by one on the floor face down. Even if someone had a gun would they have used it? Any movement as someone tried to draw a gun would no doubt have been seen and they would have been instantly shot or even if they managed to fire they would have been outnumbered and probably more people would have died as the terrorists would have just shot everyone in the panic or blown themselves up.

Same in America when the guy at the office party killed people was anyone saved because of gun laws?

The only terror attack where I feel a gun may have been beneficial is the guy with the knife a few months ago in the tube in London. Perhaps if someone had had a gun they could have neutralised him sooner but then that argument could be turned on its head because if guns were legal then in all probability the man with the knife could have had a gun and started shooting randomly. As it was he only hurt one man severely and could have in fact hurt many more with a gun.

The only way I can see citizens feeling safer is within their own properties where they would have time to react to the danger. However, in UK our burglars dont tend to have guns but are usually some low life drug addict. If I had a gun I would probably use it if frightened enough and then it would be me facing imprisonment. As it stands I have a makeshift weapon of choice just in case my life or my child's is put in danger but that is the only time I would use it.

What is mad in the UK is that all the criminals and potential terrorists seem to have guns but in most cases our Police dont and I think that needs to change soon.

However, would I feel safer if I had a gun, probably psychologically but, would that safety be a reality, probably not, ecause it would also mean any psycopath or loose cannon would also have one too.

This thread isnt to have a go at legal gun ownership its just to open up debate about why people feel safer and whether in reality they are safer.
edit on 29-3-2016 by anxiouswens because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2016 by anxiouswens because: (no reason given)



+17 more 
posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

There was a Draw Muhammad Day in the Outskirts of Dallas, Texas a while back. A few muslims got angry and decided to go shoot up the building it was being held at.
The assault didnt even last 30 seconds, and the didnt make it ten feet from the car before they were gunned down. No one was hit in the crossfire, and guns were put away once the threat ended.
Thats what happens when you mess with Texas.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Very simple someone would shoot the terrorist.
AK-47 usually has between 20 and 30 round magazine.
which means they have to reload every few seconds an automatic fire. And a little longer if they are going around using selective fire.
a person with one well aimed Pistol shot could neutralize the terrorist.
A person without a firearm or bow and arrow is left with the option of running or dying



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: MayanBoricua
a reply to: anxiouswens

There was a Draw Muhammad Day in the Outskirts of Dallas, Texas a while back. A few muslims got angry and decided to go shoot up the building it was being held at.
The assault didnt even last 30 seconds, and the didnt make it ten feet from the car before they were gunned down. No one was hit in the crossfire, and guns were put away once the threat ended.
Thats what happens when you mess with Texas.


Killed by a Police Officer.
Not armed civilians.


However, bullets going in the direction of Terrorists is a better alternative to screams and cries for help.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
If I'm sitting in a cafe or theatre or wherever, and somebody comes in guns a blazing. Yes I would like the option to return fire.
I have a fire extinguisher in my house. just in case, not because I expect to use it.
Same applies to my gun permit. I'm not scared to go anywhere, but. Just in case.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

Because the enemy can never win a war by disarming the citizens. That is how a lot of wars are won.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Unless the public are all going to start the practice of concealed or open carry I can't imagine they would protect much people from attacks in public places.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
There was a mall shooting up in washington state I think, a guy was there with his girlfriend... he ignored the gun free zone bs. He heard gun fire got her into a safe position drew his sidearm and aimed at the shooter but he did not fire because if he missed he would hit innocent people.

Now confronted with an armed and ready to defend himself individual the gunman took his own life, police credited him with saving lives and he never had to pull a trigger.

Now in an actual terror attack its more about personal comfort, I know I have the ability to defend myself (assuming im not blown up) and possibly to defend/save others... because in such an attack seconds will count and the police will be minutes away most likely.


+1 more 
posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens




I don't believe so because the most natural thing to do is run and hide and in any event the people outside wouldnt have had the time to react.

Then look at the concert hall where they were being shot one by one on the floor face down. Even if someone had a gun would they have used it? Any movement as someone tried to draw a gun would no doubt have been seen and they would have been instantly shot or even if they managed to fire they would have been outnumbered and probably more people would have died as the terrorists would have just shot everyone in the panic or blown themselves up.


Yeah, All the time. The media will never report on it. Doesnt fit the whole "anti gun agenda."



1. In Chicago earlier this year, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.”

2. In a Philadelphia barber shop earlier this year, Warren Edwards “opened fire on customers and barbers” after an argument. Another man with a concealed-carry permit then shot the shooter; of course it’s impossible to tell whether the shooter would have kept killing if he hadn’t been stopped, but a police captain was quoted as saying that, “I guess he [the man who shot the shooter] saved a lot of people in there.”

3. In a hospital near Philadelphia, in 2014, Richard Plotts shot and killed the psychiatric caseworker with whom he was meeting, and shot and wounded his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman. Silverman shot back, and took down Plotts. While again it’s not certain whether Plotts would have killed other people, Delaware County D.A. Jack Whelan stated that, “If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead”; Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux similar said that he “believe[d] the doctor saved lives.” Plotts was still carrying 39 unspent rounds when he was arrested. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]




4. In Plymouth, Pa., in 2012, William Allabaugh killed one man and wounded another following an argument over Allabaugh being ejected from a bar. Allabaugh then approached a bar manager and Mark Ktytor and reportedly pointed his gun at them; Ktytor, who had a concealed-carry license, then shot Allabaugh. “The video footage and the evidence reveals that Mr. Allabaugh had turned around and was reapproaching the bar. Mr. [Ktytor] then acted, taking him down. We believe that it could have been much worse that night,” Luzerne County A.D.A. Jarrett Ferentino said.

5. Near Spartanburg, S.C., in 2012, Jesse Gates went to his church armed with a shotgun and kicked in a door. But Aaron Guyton, who had a concealed-carry license, drew his gun and pointed it at Gates, and other parishioners then disarmed Gates. Note that in this instance, unlike the others, it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone, but just brought the shotgun to church and kicked in the door to draw attention to himself or vent his frustration.

6. In Atlanta in 2009, Calvin Lavant and Jamal Hill broke into an apartment during a party and forced everyone to the floor. After they gathered various valuables, and separated the men and the women, and Lavant said to Hill, “we are about to have sex with these girls, then we are going to kill them all,” and began “discussing condoms and the number of bullets in their guns.” At that point, Sean Barner, a Marine who was attending Georgia State as part of the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program, managed to get to the book bag he brought to the party; took out his gun; shot and scared away Hill; went into the neighboring room, where Lavant was about to rape one of the women; was shot at by Lavant, and shot back and hit Lavant, who then ran off and later died of his injuries. One of the women was shot and wounded in the shootout, but given the circumstances described in the sources I linked to, it seemed very likely that Lavant and Hill would have killed (as well as raped) some or all of the partygoers had they not been stopped. This incident of course involves a member of the military, not a civilian, so some may discount it on those grounds. But Barner was acting as a civilian, and carrying a gun as a civilian (he had a concealed carry license); indeed, if he had been on a military base, he would generally not have been allowed to carry a gun except when on security duty. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]

7. In Winnemucca, Nev., in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with 300 people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed-carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.

8. In Colorado Springs, Colo., in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have (UPDATE: he apparently went to the church with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition).





9. In Edinboro, Pa., in 1998, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun — possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear — when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. It’s not clear whether Wurst was planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not stopped him.

10. In Pearl, Miss., in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. I have seen sources that state that Woodham was on the way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting, though I couldn’t find any contemporaneous news articles that so state. [UPDATE: For whatever it’s worth, Heidi Kinchen of The Advocate (Baton Rouge) notes that Myrick was in the Army reserves and in the National Guard, though he was obviously not on duty at the time of the shooting.]


Source: www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: angryhulk
Unless the public are all going to start the practice of concealed or open carry I can't imagine they would protect much people from attacks in public places.


This is why we need more guns, more training, and more education.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Correct. It was Police.
But its really the same procedure.
If the cop was somewhere far away, someone else would have done it in similar fashion.
There was another story from houston about a man who shot up some place trying to kill a guy, then it ends up at a restaurant, and a random civilian put an end to it. It was not widely reported, because it shows the life saving potential of firearms; does not fit the narrative.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: anxiouswens
I am asking the above question because I really would like to understand the thinking when certain members say things like "thats why we want to keep our guns", "should have gun ownership and maybe more would have survived".

I've seen comments like this many times recently in view of the terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels and in America but what has made me pose the question is that I have just today seen video footage of the shooter on Capitol Hill yesterday. In it, understandably, everyone is panicking and running in every direction to try and hide or run away. In fact they were acting exactly the same as citizens would in Countries where guns arent legal.

By the way I'm not suggesting I'm anti gun nor am I saying there shouldnt be legal gun ownership I'm just interested how citizens believe having a gun would protect them.

Take for instance the shooter in Paris outside the cafe. He just opened fire suddenly without warning with an AK47. Many died. Would the outcome of that scenario been any different if someone at the cafe had a gun. I don't believe so because the most natural thing to do is run and hide and in any event the people outside wouldnt have had the time to react.

Then look at the concert hall where they were being shot one by one on the floor face down. Even if someone had a gun would they have used it? Any movement as someone tried to draw a gun would no doubt have been seen and they would have been instantly shot or even if they managed to fire they would have been outnumbered and probably more people would have died as the terrorists would have just shot everyone in the panic or blown themselves up.

Same in America when the guy at the office party killed people was anyone saved because of gun laws?

The only terror attack where I feel a gun may have been beneficial is the guy with the knife a few months ago in the tube in London. Perhaps if someone had had a gun they could have neutralised him sooner but then that argument could be turned on its head because if guns were legal then in all probability the man with the knife could have had a gun and started shooting randomly. As it was he only hurt one man severely and could have in fact hurt many more with a gun.

The only way I can see citizens feeling safer is within their own properties where they would have time to react to the danger. However, in UK our burglars dont tend to have guns but are usually some low life drug addict. If I had a gun I would probably use it if frightened enough and then it would be me facing imprisonment. As it stands I have a makeshift weapon of choice just in case my life or my child's is put in danger but that is the only time I would use it.

What is mad in the UK is that all the criminals and potential terrorists seem to have guns but in most cases our Police dont and I think that needs to change soon.

However, would I feel safer if I had a gun, probably psychologically but, would that safety be a reality, probably not, ecause it would also mean any psycopath or loose cannon would also have one too.

This thread isnt to have a go at legal gun ownership its just to open up debate about why people feel safer and whether in reality they are safer.



Concealed carry works because terrorist or criminals never know who is armed.

I'd rather die in a shootout defending myself than to go down like a fish in a barrel unarmed.

No one who advocates concealed carry believes that it will stop ALL incidents. However, the point is to make it so that those who wish to do us harm are unsure if they will encounter armed resistance.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

In Washington D.C., within the political district, it is not permitted for a person to wander about with a gun, for security reasons.

And as for running, yes, it is often necessary when the crap hits the rotary airflow regulator, to find cover before returning fire, or counter assaulting in some other way. Armed or not, one is not bulletproof. But if one can gain cover, and use the fact that terrorists tend to assault the soft target, the obvious target first, one could take ones time, depending on cover quality, and take them by surprise with a few well placed rounds to the face.

In a thick, panicking crowd, where the death toll climbs by the millisecond, one could easily take cover under a stack of dead, and kill ones enemies from beneath the work of which they are so proud. It would be traumatic as all hell to be present for such an event, whether armed and acting against the enemy, or merely surviving the event in any fashion whatsoever, but at least if the people who are intended victims are armed, there will be someone to battle the enemies of freedom.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

edit on 29-3-2016 by farmville because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: angryhulk

In many parts of the US, many people do concealed or open carry.
Actually, most of the people I know have a concealed carry permit, and many do carry almost all the time.
I guess it depends where you live.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

The reason everyone had to run and hide in the Capitol shooting is because I don't think people in DC can carry very easily.
They are not allowed to open carry, and I think they are very strict about concealed carry.

As other mentioned above, in a different situation, there might be more people around who are armed and can protect themselves and others.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
That's an easy answer, they can fire back at the terrorist. The problem is that we pay tons of taxes to fund the NSA, FBI, CIA, and whatever else agency you can think of that are here to prevent this problem.

Most of the time these agencies had intel on these terrorists, yet do nothing about it. It's almost as if they are using these terrorists to justify their jobs. I say let's put their funding on the line and see how many more terrorist attacks we have.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Yes I get that - psychologically the perpetrator wouldnt feel as empowered they would know in all likelihood someone would be ready to defend so then it could be said they may think twice. Whereas here in the UK they know we are just sitting ducks and so straight away the balance of power is on their side!a reply to: Edumakated



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
And then there's this.

Barber Shop shootout with CWP holders

They were citizens, and it was legal. They stopped the robbery and shot the robber. I could keep going with this all day.

There are 3 kinds of people

-Those who run from the fire
-Those who stand by and watch the fire happen
-Those who run to the fire

Which one are you?

Love the great states of South Carolina, Florida, Alaska, Texas, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon....I'm sure there's more.
edit on 29-3-2016 by BooCrackers because: Just to prove that guns are the bees knees



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Legal gun ownership does not necessarily mean citizens are more protected from terrorist attack.

There are examples of regular citizens using their right to protect themselves and others, which I believe other members have provided such examples, but in the end there is not much the average firearm owner can do in cases of well-planned attacks or situations involving explosives.

It's all a matter of timing and luck.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join