Of course, bystanders or persons nearby may also be armed, and this is where the next problem is introduced, do they all pull out their guns and start shooting at the attacker?  If they do, are they proficiently trained marksmen?  What if the bullets hit the victim?  What if the bullets go through windows and kill small children playing their Xbox? 

That, right there, is why the idea of "More guns! MORE!" that the NRA and other pro-gun advocates spew any time the opportunity arises is nothing close to a good idea. We already have enough accidental shootings with the amount of guns we have now.

Obviously you would rather have a gun, but this opens up whole new possibilities and dangers.  If, say, this British serviceman was armed, it most likely would make no difference so long as the man with the meat clever decapitates you before you can fire your weapon at him.  The thing with carrying a gun is that it isn't an automatic protection, you actually have to draw it and fire it.  If the guy with the meat clever is behind you, with the weapon hidden in his coat, then as he quickly catches up to you he pulls it out and starts hacking at your head with it, what can you actually do?  Sure, there's a chance you might notice it coming and have time to react, but most likely it all happens to fast and you get decapitated either way.

 

Of course, bystanders or persons nearby may also be armed, and this is where the next problem is introduced, do they all pull out their guns and start shooting at the attacker?  If they do, are they proficiently trained marksmen?  What if the bullets hit the victim?  What if the bullets go through windows and kill small children playing their Xbox?  And yes, this does happen, just look at the LAPD during the Dorner manhunt where supposedly trained police officers managed to miss the truck of the innocent victims in the mistaken identity incident and lodge bullets in houses and garages (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209).

No, a gun doesn't offer instant protection. However, it acts as a strong deterrence that someone might be armed (look at the difference in crime rates from Chicago, where it is illegal to leave your house with a gun unless it's disassembled compared to rural areas in conceal carry states). Taking this to the extreme, James Holmes, the shooter at the Batman movie in Colorado, had seven theaters closer to him, some with even higher seating capacity. The one thing that separated the theater he chose from the others was that it was a gun free zone, where only police are allowed to carry weapons. Given the chances, I'd rather be carrying and have a better chance of defending myself.

 

On the LAPD incident, this furthers my claim that police in America are the exact opposite of highly trained with firearms. Based on my work and multiple people I know that are ex-cops and current cops, they all say that 90% of cops are unable to shoot. This problem severely increases for major city departments. The average qualification for most police in my area is 100 rounds twice a year, and almost no one is ever denied(I know of a story of a 17 year veteran literally crying because he couldn't get on Arizona's state wide gang task force due to his poor marksmanship). A lot of us "gun nuts", especially concealed carriers, go through 200 rounds in a week.

 

One story that wasn't talked about much was the Clackamas Mall Shooting in Portland, Oregon. Another gun free zone, the suspect walked in with an AR-15 and shot 30 rounds, injuring two people. A concealed carrier who failed to notice the sign that would've made him a victim pulled out his glock and aimed, but didn't fire due to people behind the shooter. Despite the fact no rounds came at him, the shooter ran around a corner and shot himself, just because someone showed force.

 

That, right there, is why the idea of "More guns! MORE!" that the NRA and other pro-gun advocates spew any time the opportunity arises is nothing close to a good idea. We already have enough accidental shootings with the amount of guns we have now.

The facts are that almost all mass shootings occur in gun free zones, police take 5-10 minutes to arrive and move into those locations, and all but one mass shooter have committed suicide or given up upon someone with a gun showing up.

 

Additionally, over 80% of US cops support allowing teachers to carry sidearms on school grounds after training and over 90% believe that a good guy with a gun could've lessened the losses at any of the recent mass shootings (story). To channel Barack Obama, if it saves just one life it's worth it.

 

TLDR: The potential of a gun is a deterrence, cops aren't a representation of most gun owners in America, a gun doesn't need to be fired to stop a tragedy, almost all mass shooters give up or kill themselves when a good guy with a gun shows up and over 80% of US cops believe in arming teachers and 90% of US cops believe a good guy with a gun could've prevented loss of life at any recent mass shootings.

I don't understand the logic behind that as I'd only buy a gun legally because other people are legally allowed to buy guns, I think a lot of people who live in places where guns aren't commonplace sees it like this, your chances of being the victim of a gun crime is so low here because guns are so harshly controlled and punished when encountered.

 

 

Contrary to most people around me (and probably on here too), I have shot with both a pistol and a MP5, I have also trained tactical entry with police, you need substantial training in order to respond correctly when pointing a gun at someone.

 

You may say that it was only training, however I were briefed, geared up with a 12 kg vest, helmet and goggles, everything was as they do in the real world, the only difference was that the firearm I were using fired training rounds (paint), the gun in question was a modified Heckler and Koch USP compact, I have also fired the real version.

 

You forget everything about it being training once you kick the door open and someone fires a blanks at you, you  just fucking try to put an end to it.

 

 

We'd potentially have many injuries or deaths if several people on scene were armed, most of their shots would have missed and potentially hit one of the hundreds of bystanders.

 

There had been no reason to shoot the two assailants in London had they not charged police, police wouldn't have shot them if they surrendered, however they would have been shot dead if civilians on scene were armed as they are not trained to risk assess.

No, a gun doesn't offer instant protection. However, it acts as a strong deterrence that someone might be armed (look at the difference in crime rates from Chicago, where it is illegal to leave your house with a gun unless it's disassembled compared to rural areas in conceal carry states). Taking this to the extreme, James Holmes, the shooter at the Batman movie in Colorado, had seven theaters closer to him, some with even higher seating capacity. The one thing that separated the theater he chose from the others was that it was a gun free zone, where only police are allowed to carry weapons. Given the chances, I'd rather be carrying and have a better chance of defending myself.

 

On the LAPD incident, this furthers my claim that police in America are the exact opposite of highly trained with firearms. Based on my work and multiple people I know that are ex-cops and current cops, they all say that 90% of cops are unable to shoot. This problem severely increases for major city departments. The average qualification for most police in my area is 100 rounds twice a year, and almost no one is ever denied(I know of a story of a 17 year veteran literally crying because he couldn't get on Arizona's state wide gang task force due to his poor marksmanship). A lot of us "gun nuts", especially concealed carriers, go through 200 rounds in a week.

 

One story that wasn't talked about much was the Clackamas Mall Shooting in Portland, Oregon. Another gun free zone, the suspect walked in with an AR-15 and shot 30 rounds, injuring two people. A concealed carrier who failed to notice the sign that would've made him a victim pulled out his glock and aimed, but didn't fire due to people behind the shooter. Despite the fact no rounds came at him, the shooter ran around a corner and shot himself, just because someone showed force.

 

The facts are that almost all mass shootings occur in gun free zones, police take 5-10 minutes to arrive and move into those locations, and all but one mass shooter have committed suicide or given up upon someone with a gun showing up.

 

Additionally, over 80% of US cops support allowing teachers to carry sidearms on school grounds after training and over 90% believe that a good guy with a gun could've lessened the losses at any of the recent mass shootings (story). To channel Barack Obama, if it saves just one life it's worth it.

 

That's like comparing the crime rate in London to the crime rate in Edinburgh, or the crime rate in Detroit to the crime rate in Fairfax, Virgina.  Chicago's crime rate doesn't stem from gun control measures, it stems from a storied and well documented history of inner and outer city gang problems and conflicts, as well as organised crime, not to mention the higher crime rates that densely populated urban areas experience on the whole.  Edinburgh has a population somewhere between 490,000 to 500,000 people, as does Fresno, CA.  There were 5 murder cases last year in Edinburgh.  There were 51 in Fresno.  This disproves any claim that gun control itself is responsible for Chicago's high crime rate - it isn't.  The problem with Chicago is that there are already so many illegal guns in circulation, therefore gun control hinders the lawful users, negating any benefits that the right to bear arms brings.  On the other hand, in Edinburgh, where guns are very few and far between, gun control helps as it stops guns from entering into mass circulation among criminals.  For a city saturated with guns like Chicago, gun control is not the answer to violent gun crime.  For a city where guns are scarcely available like Edinburgh, gun control helps keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people.

 

If the UK Parliament passed a law allowing guns in Edinburgh and suddenly gun shops swarmed the city and large numbers of the population had firearms, I guarantee you the murder rate would go up and not down.

But until someone comes up with a way to instantly remove 300 million guns from this country's civilians and then the government and police to ensure that the people can not be oppressed (most foreigners know how corrupt most police agencies can be in the US. Hell, even in Canada I just saw a video of a Regional Police Officer threatening to beat a suspect and plant cocaine on him). The idea for gun control that many people outside of the US want is impossible to do in the US simply because there are too many guns. Until the number of guns is greatly reduced, I and many others won't be disarming ourselves due to the actions of some criminals when many more are still out there.

 

And I never said that civilians know how to make those types of decisions, I pointed out that it is hypocritical to say civilians wouldn't know how to respond to these situations because few police (not so much in Europe, but in a lot of other countries and the US) know how to do this either. Just look at the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, supposedly one of the most highly trained SWAT Teams in the world, fired 7 shots and only hit an unarmed girl on a couch with a ricochet (story).

Police in Europe is generally highly trained in every aspect of their job.

That's like comparing the crime rate in London to the crime rate in Edinburgh, or the crime rate in Detroit to the crime rate in Fairfax, Virgina.  Chicago's crime rate doesn't stem from gun control measures, it stems from a storied and well documented history of inner and outer city gang problems and conflicts, as well as organised crime, not to mention the higher crime rates that densely populated urban areas experience on the whole.  Edinburgh has a population somewhere between 490,000 to 500,000 people, as does Fresno, CA.  There were 5 murder cases last year in Edinburgh.  There were 51 in Fresno.  This disproves any claim that gun control itself is responsible for Chicago's high crime rate - it isn't.  The problem with Chicago is that there are already so many illegal guns in circulation, therefore gun control hinders the lawful users, negating any benefits that the right to bear arms brings.  On the other hand, in Edinburgh, where guns are very few and far between, gun control helps as it stops guns from entering into mass circulation among criminals.  For a city saturated with guns like Chicago, gun control is not the answer to violent gun crime.  For a city where guns are scarcely available like Edinburgh, gun control helps keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people.

 

If the UK Parliament passed a law allowing guns in Edinburgh and suddenly gun shops swarmed the city and large numbers of the population had firearms, I guarantee you the murder rate would go up and not down.

That would probably be because the UK tends to have a much higher violent crime rate than the US (1,2,3) due to the fact that the cities are more condensed compared to a majority of the US populations living in suburbs or rural areas.

 

While gun control may be the answer to many other countries, it has proven to not be the answer for the US.

That would probably be because the UK tends to have a much higher violent crime rate than the US (1,2,3) due to the fact that the cities are more condensed compared to a majority of the US populations living in suburbs or rural areas.

 

While gun control may be the answer to many other countries, it has proven to not be the answer for the US.

 

The problem with violent crime is that there are varying definitions, for example:

 

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report (FBI UCR) counts four categories of crime as violent crimes: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault."  Side note, what the hell is forcible rape?  Isn't rape simply rape?

 

 

Vioent crime in the UK is much more varying in scope, with all violent acts against a person being reported and recorded as violent crime, this includes the most minor of assaults.

In order to function as intended, the confiscation or restriction of arms depends chiefly upon the cooperation of the vilest elements of society. As Cesare Beccaria wrote referring to the absence of the right to bear arms: “it disarm only those who are not inclined or determined to commit crimes. And all the while, those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws and the most important codes, how will they respect even the minor or purely arbitrary laws?”

 

They won't. Criminals everywhere have guns, and they always will. Gun control simply takes guns away from those who would normally abide by the law, in turn rendering them more vulnerable to attack. As c13 stated, most, (actually, if I'm not entirely mistaken--all) mass shootings to happen in the United States, and even in Canada took place within gun-free zones (concealed/unconcealed carry is not permitted in Canada and self-defense there is not considered a legitimate use for a firearm). After all, the last thing a bad guy with a gun wants to see is a good guy with a gun--whether it be a police officer or a law-abiding gun owner.

 

On a philosophical basis, the right to bear arms is undeniably just. That is, if the foundation of your worldview is liberty. The two most important tenets of Western civilization are life and property. From these flows liberty. It is my opinion that a government has no moral basis for denying its citizens a right to defend themselves, their family, and their property. If you cannot be provided the means to adequately and legally defend yourself, you cannot claim to reside in a free society. Indeed, a free man and one debarred of arms are mutually exclusive propositions.

 

 

Edited May 24, 201312 yr by 0x4361696e65

gun control only makes things worse if they didn't have gun control this wouldn't of happened and this sob would of got shot and a life would of been saved...Chicago has strict gun control and because of it it has the highest murder rate don't say that gun control works...it doesn't criminals prefer unarmed victims, nuff said

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report (FBI UCR) counts four categories of crime as violent crimes: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault."  Side note, what the hell is forcible rape?  Isn't rape simply rape?

I assume it means forcible as opposed to statutory (person is underage), rape by deceit (a crime in some [if not all, not sure] states, where consent is based on lies), etc.

gun control only makes things worse if they didn't have gun control this wouldn't of happened and this sob would of got shot and a life would of been saved...Chicago has strict gun control and because of it it has the highest murder rate don't say that gun control works...it doesn't criminals prefer unarmed victims, nuff said

 

It doesn't really matter if you have a gun or not, if someone else with a gun pulls it out and shoots you in the back, there's nothing you can do about it.  I already explained the nature of Chicago's gun problem and yes, I agree, in that instance, gun control makes the problem worse.  The difference between the UK and the US, however, is that the UK isn't completely saturated by guns.  Guns are rare here, and aside from armed police, I've never seen a real one.  In the US it doesn't matter if you have gun control or not, a criminal is still going to be able to get a gun because there are simply far too many of them available.

 

Let's face it, there's quite possibly more guns than people in the US.  There's no way you can control that and under no circumstances do I think gun control would ever work in the US.

 

This isn't about the US, though, this is about a British serviceman having his head chopped off in London, UK.  

Every time I hear a pro-gun argument that boils down to "well, criminals won't follow the law so why have the law?", I want to scream. Anyone who makes that argument really should be thrown in a padded room.

 

gun control only makes things worse if they didn't have gun control this wouldn't of happened and this sob would of got shot and a life would of been saved...

 

Bull. This was such a quick and brutal attack that by the time anyone nearby could have intervened the victim would have been dead anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

For anyone who hasn't yet seen the police response video yet, it is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MduV70fSDX0.

It's not great camerawork, but you get a general idea of how it went down...

 

And while it's not a brilliant newspaper, more info can be found here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-video-watch-shocking-1907772

 

And an extended video with the Medics responding and the scene beforehand here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-video-watch-shocking-1907772

 

Every time I hear a pro-gun argument that boils down to "well, criminals won't follow the law so why have the law?", I want to scream. Anyone who makes that argument really should be thrown in a padded room.

 

Because those laws work so well in Mexico and Brazil(strictest gun laws in the world by the way). I know a guy who was in South America for a while, in Brazil everyone had guns despite it being illegal. The reason why is that because to enforce those gun laws, they needed to have heavily armed police. People would walk up behind police, smash them over the head with something, take their guns and leave.

 

Bull. This was such a quick and brutal attack that by the time anyone nearby could have intervened the victim would have been dead anyways.

 

With that logic, we might as well disarm police because most fallen cops are killed before they realize what has happened.

And I'm done here.

Whilst the views expressed here do present some form of truth, let's please try and keep this on topic.

 

Update

 

A facebook page, set up just hours after his death, has gained over ONE MILLION likes and over £60,000 has been raised for the charity, Help for Heroes

I don't think you can say "23 minutes" different calls have different priority's.

 

 

I high doubt the average response time is 23 minutes.....

I can say that because average means the total number of minutes it took to respond to a large batch of 911 calls, divided by the number of calls themselves, very simple math. I never said anything about some calls being less severe than others, but on average the response time is mediocre and as said by one of the mods here; can differ depending on where you live and the department that responds to help you. If you live in a small town, other small towns near it may have to re-route their police officers to your town to respond to a call if all of your town's officers are busy with other calls. 911 operators also often slow the process down by going through elaborate Q&A sessions about the situation in order to minimize the number of unnecessary emergency responses they have to send out every night.

As an example; my grandfather recently went into diabetic shock. He recently turned 80, he's on oxygen due to a breathing condition called COPD and had a little pneumonia at the time. He was not responsive to any of my family members talking to him and he was shaking as if he were in a seizure, which he may well have been. It was time to call 911. The operator wasted about 3-5 minutes of my time asking me questions, despite me giving her all of the information above up front, and stating that we need an ambulance here immediately. We received a fire truck at his house within 3-4 minutes of the call. And can you guess the reason why?

1.) The fire station is less than 3 minutes away from the house? (True but not the reason.)

2.) My grandfather was a volunteer fireman in his younger years and grew up with the current Fire Chief? (True again, but not the reason.)

3.) It's a small town with not much to do? (Again true, but not the reason why.)

4.) The 911 operator responded with a sense of urgency? (Nope.)

Turns out it was

5.) Because another 911 call that happened moments earlier was already being handled by an ambulance, and a fire truck was responding as backup minutes after the ambulance had arrived. EMS decided to re-route the fire truck to his house because it was conveniently on the way to the first call, and no further assistance was needed.

The firemen who showed up were only able to give him more oxygen and ask us the same questions the 911 operator asked us until the ambulance arrived. The 2nd vehicle to respond was red unmarked Chevy Tahoe owned by his lifelong friend the Fire Chief. The third was a police car. The 4th was another police car. And 10-15 minutes later, was finally, an ambulance. Only then did they discover his insulin levels, and gave him a shot to snap him out of it. That insulin shot, combined with the 10-15 minute trip to the nearest emergency room with good equipment and attentive nurses and doctors were what saved his life.

The response of someone who could actually provide life saving help was mediocre at best. And this is sadly the case for many emergency calls. Many people lose their lives due to understaffed emergency services, budget cuts that affect vehicles and equipment, and brainless 911 operators. Luckily my grandfather survived it, and about a week after, he was able to go back home, although the doctors said he will never fully recover.

This is not a sob story, for those wondering. But a real life experience I wanted to share that underscored my earlier point. Response time could and should be better, but likely won't be for the foreseeable future.

Edited May 25, 201312 yr by unr3al

I can say that because average means the total number of minutes it took to respond to a large batch of 911 calls, divided by the number of calls themselves, very simple math. I never said anything about some calls being less severe than others, but on average the response time is mediocre and as said by one of the mods here; can differ depending on where you live and the department that responds to help you. If you live in a small town, other small towns near it may have to re-route their police officers to your town to respond to a call if all of your town's officers are busy with other calls. 911 operators also often slow the process down by going through elaborate Q&A sessions about the situation in order to minimize the number of unnecessary emergency responses they have to send out every night.

As an example; my grandfather recently went into diabetic shock. He recently turned 80, he's on oxygen due to a breathing condition called COPD and had a little pneumonia at the time. He was not responsive to any of my family members talking to him and he was shaking as if he were in a seizure, which he may well have been. It was time to call 911. The operator wasted about 3-5 minutes of my time asking me questions, despite me giving her all of the information above up front, and stating that we need an ambulance here immediately. We received a fire truck at his house within 3-4 minutes of the call. And can you guess the reason why?

1.) The fire station is less than 3 minutes away from the house? (True but not the reason.)

2.) My grandfather was a volunteer fireman in his younger years and grew up with the current Fire Chief? (True again, but not the reason.)

3.) It's a small town with not much to do? (Again true, but not the reason why.)

4.) The 911 operator responded with a sense of urgency? (Nope.)

Turns out it was

5.) Because another 911 call that happened moments earlier was already being handled by an ambulance, and a fire truck was responding as backup minutes after the ambulance had arrived. EMS decided to re-route the fire truck to his house because it was conveniently on the way to the first call, and no further assistance was needed.

The firemen who showed up were only able to give him more oxygen and ask us the same questions the 911 operator asked us until the ambulance arrived. The 2nd vehicle to respond was red unmarked Chevy Tahoe owned by his lifelong friend the Fire Chief. The third was a police car. The 4th was another police car. And 10-15 minutes later, was finally, an ambulance. Only then did they discover his insulin levels, and gave him a shot to snap him out of it. That insulin shot, combined with the 10-15 minute trip to the nearest emergency room with good equipment and attentive nurses and doctors were what saved his life.

The response of someone who could actually provide life saving help was mediocre at best. And this is sadly the case for many emergency calls. Many people lose their lives due to understaffed emergency services, budget cuts that affect vehicles and equipment, and brainless 911 operators. Luckily my grandfather survived it, and about a week after, he was able to go back home, although the doctors said he will never fully recover.

This is not a sob story, for those wondering. But a real life experience I wanted to share that underscored my earlier point. Response time could and should be better, but likely won't be for the foreseeable future.

 

 

I know what your saying, if all the ambulances are being used really not much they can do beside send a engine or a police officer to come and try to help tell that ambulance 

 becomes free. Have a better chance doing that then taking a company ambulance such as, bell or life star...

 

But doesn't everyone know what we should cut first responders budget and help out the scum the earth  pay for their new Cadillac's? 

Edited May 25, 201312 yr by Darkangel