# Anti-Terrorist Tactics from England 1909



## Deaf Smith (Dec 8, 2008)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece

Times Online
From The Sunday Times

December 7, 2008 by Richard Munday


*Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .*

"In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back  and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down."

---
Man times sure to change in good old England.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 8, 2008)

Aye, that surely is so.  I have become convinced, in no small part by my interaction with the good folks here at MT, that there is no more safe or better conducted citizenry than one which is armed.

It may be a little barbaric in some ways but it has, it seems, ever been the case that the most polite societies have been those within which abusive behaviour earned you the appropriate equivalent of an "axe in the skull".


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece
> 
> Times Online
> From The Sunday Times
> ...


 

Yes now we have MCDonalds, Starbucks, Burger King, KFC and much else, will Americans be finally satisfied when we've turned into a clone of the USA? The way things are done in the States isn't necessarily the way the rest of the world wants things done. Whats right there doesn't make the rest of us wrong.


----------



## GBlues (Dec 9, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Yes now we have MCDonalds, Starbucks, Burger King, KFC and much else, will Americans be finally satisfied when we've turned into a clone of the USA? The way things are done in the States isn't necessarily the way the rest of the world wants things done. Whats right there doesn't make the rest of us wrong.


 
Very true. That is a fact. However, in the United States, in states where the common citizenry are allowed to carry weapons if they choose the crime rate is lower in those areas. Here's the deal, a law abiding citizen does not need a gun, unless, he is accosted by a criminal that has a gun, in which case most criminals generally want one thing your stuff. If it means they have to work for it, they probably won't do it, especially if someone is gambling with there lives. Now you can put your trust in the fact that the law is and LEO's can get to your home, or in the middle of an attack a good citizen will call and they will come and protect you. Except, your cops don't even carry guns. Point in case. THe big, jewelry heist they had in london, just the other day. A street beat cop, would have got killed had he walked in on that, cause he don't have a gun.

Anyways, that's my piece on the gun thing. Secondly most Americans I feel, really don't care what other nations do, so long as they leave us alone. At least I feel that way. I don't want you to be like us. Then what would make America so great? So unique? If everybody was like us, then they would feel entitled to the same rights and laws that we have, and revolt against there country, and then how would we be so special anymore? Nah, you guys can keep things just the way you have them, I'll take this over any other nation, any day. Although I have often talked about moving to japan. But that is for my own selfish reasons. I still, wouldn't have permanent residence any place else but the Good old, USA!


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2008)

GBlues said:


> Very true. That is a fact. However, in the United States, in states where the common citizenry are allowed to carry weapons if they choose the crime rate is lower in those areas. Here's the deal, a law abiding citizen does not need a gun, unless, he is accosted by a criminal that has a gun, in which case most criminals generally want one thing your stuff. If it means they have to work for it, they probably won't do it, especially if someone is gambling with there lives. Now you can put your trust in the fact that the law is and LEO's can get to your home, or in the middle of an attack a good citizen will call and they will come and protect you. Except, your cops don't even carry guns. Point in case. THe big, jewelry heist they had in london, just the other day. A street beat cop, would have got killed had he walked in on that, cause he don't have a gun.
> 
> *Anyways, that's my piece on the gun thing. Secondly most Americans I feel, really don't care what other nations do, so long as they leave us alone. At least I feel that way. I don't want you to be like us. Then what would make America so great? So unique? If everybody was like us, then they would feel entitled to the same rights and laws that we have, and revolt against there country, and then how would we be so special anymore? Nah, you guys can keep things just the way you have them, I'll take this over any other nation, any day*. Although I have often talked about moving to japan. But that is for my own selfish reasons. I still, wouldn't have permanent residence any place else but the Good old, USA!


 
I'm glad you feel like that!! if everyone felt like that perhaps we'd stop having posts that tell us we need to have guns!!
We manage things our way and only if the British public don't like it will things change, the fact that one American poster on MT thinks we are wrong will change nothing!
Things work differently here and it's our perogative to moan about them not citizens from other countries. I don't post up thinking that America should disarm everyone, I believe thats your business not mine.
If the citizens arm here it will be because they want to, as we haven't yet and there's no clamour to I guess we won't be anytime soon. 

Everytime one of these 'ARM BRITAIN' threads comes up I sigh and think 'here we go again', why does it bother some people SO much?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2008)

The self defence laws here allow far more than any I've seen posted up from the States, we are allowed to defend ourselves reasonable and we are allowed to use weapons to do that, that includes guns if you have them. All you have to do is prove you were in fear of your life and you acted with reasonable force, you are even allowed to strike first if you feel you are in danger. Living in the country most of my neighbours and myself have shotguns, used for supplementing dinner and shooting the peasants lol. There's plenty of gun clubs here and plenty of people who know how to use weapons. 
The people here that are being killed by guns are young people shot by other young people, it's gangs. The average criminal here doesn't carry guns, we don't have the very violent home invasions, we do have muggings and bank robberies, having a weapon in any of these situations doesn't guarantee your safety. We don't have the accidental shooting of children because they've got hold of their parents guns, we don't have people shooting someone who knocks at their door!

You can pick up any weapon in this country to defend yourself with, yes a sword, cricket bat, hammer whatever no one has to lie down and die rather than defend themselves.



*Facts & figures*


<LI minmax_bound="true">The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 13% in 2006/07 compared to the previous year.  <LI minmax_bound="true">Firearms were involved in 566 serious or fatal injuries in 2006/07, compared to 645 the previous year - a drop of 12%. <LI minmax_bound="true">The number of armed robberies involving guns dropped by 3% <LI minmax_bound="true">There were 13% fewer serious and fatal injuries related to gun crimes in 2006/07. <LI minmax_bound="true">The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07. 
The number of reported crimes involving air guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07 over 2005/06.
(Source: Crime in England and Wales 2006/07; Homicide, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2006-07.)

The population of the Uk is 60,776,238 and gun deaths/fatal injuries are in three figures. Those figures include suicides by shooting ie fatal shootings. it also includes the figures for Northern Ireland where sectarian shootings still occur.


*Facts & figures*


<LI minmax_bound="true">The number of domestic burglaries fell by 11% between 2006-07 and 2007-08, <LI minmax_bound="true">Other household thefts fell by 12% 
Reports of criminal damage fell by 13%
(Source: Crime in England and Wales 2007/08 report)


The most worring crime in the UK is that which is alcohol related. binge drinking, under age drinking and violence is on the increase, fighting and violence on the streets by drunks youths is becoming a very big problem and one that arming the population will not help. Can you imagine all these drunk people out for a fight being armed?
Crime figures have recently shown an increase in rape especially 'date rape', it's generally believed this rate has always been high but is now being recorded because more people are willing to go to the police also it is being recorded as rape whereas before it would be logged as a domestic crime. 
Street mugging has also been recorded as being higher, this coincides with the increase of Eastern Europeans who are predominantly knife carrying and carrying a gun I'm afraid unless you carry it out in your hand all the time will do litttle to help you. practical self defence techniques of awareness, not walking down dark alleys etc is the advice there as I believe it is in America. UInless you're Crocodile Dundee of course lol!


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 9, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I'm glad you feel like that!! if everyone felt like that perhaps we'd stop having posts that tell us we need to have guns!!
> 
> Everytime one of these 'ARM BRITAIN' threads comes up I sigh and think 'here we go again', why does it bother some people SO much?


 
*Shrug* Maybe we get sick of hearing the "Woe is us, two cockney anarchists shot up a Tube station and ruined my Lager and now its not safe to go for fish and chips, whatever shall we do?  Football! Oi Oi Oi"

LOL.  

Yes, Tez, that was a joke.  Reeeeeelax.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 9, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Crime figures have recently shown an increase in rape especially 'date rape', it's generally believed this rate has always been high but is now being recorded because more people are willing to go to the police also it is being recorded as rape whereas before it would be logged as a domestic crime.


 
hey! We started that with awareness programs and taking things like that seriously instead of making them minor offenses...

_*So stop trying to be like us. *_


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> hey! We started that with awareness programs and taking things like that seriously instead of making them minor offenses...
> 
> _*So stop trying to be like us. *_


 
I was looking for a smiley that stuck it's tongue out lol!

Rape just wasn't reported because of the way it was dealt with, the victim was interrogated and rarely believed by the courts, the defence barristers would rip them apart and getting a conviction was very difficult. these days attitudes have changed but a lot of women are still reluctant to come forward.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 9, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Yes now we have *MCDonalds, Starbucks, Burger King, KFC* and much else, will Americans be finally satisfied when we've turned into a clone of the USA? The way things are done in the States isn't necessarily the way the rest of the world wants things done. Whats right there doesn't make the rest of us wrong.


 
I have told my wife (from China) and a friend of mine's wife (from Japan) and  co-worker (from Germany) this many times. The best way for America to take over the world is to get everyone to eat like us. No one else could survive on this crap...only Americans can eat this stuff and live :uhyeah:

Rather insidious of us here in the good ole US of A don&#8217;t you think :EG: :uhyeah:



Deaf Smith said:


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As to the OP

I am not saying anything for or against gun ownership here but comparing anti-terrorism tactics of the early 1900 to now is like comparing trench warfare to a nuclear strike.

It really would have made no difference what-so-ever if every single man woman and child was armed in NYC on 9/11. It also would have made no difference during the Anthrax & Beltway Sniper Attacks either and it would make no difference in something like the Unabomber.

Terrorists are much better armed today, much better trained today and some are religious fanatics, but not all. And many are better trained because they study things like terrorism from 1909 or any other time that came before.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 10, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> IIt really would have made no difference what-so-ever if every single man woman and child was armed in NYC on 9/11. It also would have made no difference during the Anthrax & Beltway Sniper Attacks either and it would make no difference in something like the Unabomber.


 
Uh, Xue, and on fight 93? If a few people, just a few, had been armed on the flights that were hijacked that day, *THERE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN AN 9/11*!.

Simple as that.

Deaf


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 10, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Uh, Xue, and on fight 93? If a few people, just a few, had been armed on the flights that were hijacked that day, *THERE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN AN 9/11*!.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> Deaf


 
Although I am in awe of the bravery of the people of flight 93 none were armed and in most cases I doubt that most people even if armed would do anything at all. A gun in the hands of someone that is untrained is not necessarily a good thing or a guarantee that they could stop a thing. There are real big differences between holding a gun, firing a gun at a target, firing a gun at person, and firing a gun at a person at close proximity who has a gun that is pointing it at you. Do you honestly believe that just by a person having a gun on them that they will absolutely without hesitation under extreme duress and in fear of their life that they would have the presence of mind to aim and shoot and kill the hijacker? Military people, a police officer yes, possibly even an avid hunter but the average person who spends time at a shooting range doubtful. Someone who just bought a gun for protection, highly unlikely. 

And let&#8217;s have a reality check here, what you honestly think are the chances of an airline ever letting every single passenger check in with a gun. Yes the terrorists got through with them and that was absolutely unforgivable that happened. But then this, on both our parts, is speculation at best and although the capitals, bolded and underlined is a nice yelling effect it is neither proof nor disproof of said yelling comment. 

And you have only picked out one of my examples. Would having everyone armed have made a difference in the Anthrax & Beltway Sniper Attacks or the Unabomber?

Regardless of whatever your agenda is here suffice to say terrorism in the 21st century is much different than it was in England in 1909. Don't believe me I could suggest a few books on the history of it that might help.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 11, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Uh, Xue, and on fight 93? If a few people, just a few, had been armed on the flights that were hijacked that day, *THERE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN AN 9/11*!.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> Deaf



If the people on the planes had fought back, armed or not, there would not have been a 9/11.  Boxcutters are hardly the epitome of deadly efficiency.  Flight 93 showed us that, although they did have to pay with their lives to save others.  The passengers on the three other flights were under the mistaken impression that a routine hijacking was going on.  Firearms would have made little difference.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 11, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Uh, Xue, and on fight 93? If a few people, just a few, had been armed on the flights that were hijacked that day, *THERE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN AN 9/11*!.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> Deaf


 
In Northern Ireland at the height of the 'troubles' every police officer was armed, every soldier was armed and a good many of the citizens had at least one weapon illegal or legal ( many people in certain jobs were allowed to be armed) and still there were terrorist attacks, bombings and shootings. The terrorists ( who were from both sides of the divide) simply used their heads and planned well.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 11, 2008)

Good points from *EH* and *Tez* for the, if you'll forgive me, I'll call it the 'Gun Control' view.

I do agree that in such circumstances an armed citizenry has less chance to make a difference.  I do stand by what I said in post #2 above tho'.  By this I mean that one of the reasons I think for the rise in general anti-social behaviour is the lack of consequences for it.  

I'm not talking about terrorism here but the much more common criminal intimidation and general thuggery that goes on.  If people were routinely armed, not necessarily with guns, then yes, I do think that there would be an increase in violence against the person in the short term.  In the longer term tho', I think it would serve to curtail such behaviour.  The rituals of polite interaction developed in violent times precisely to forestall getting a sword inserted where the sun don't shine and it's a lesson that's been forgotten I fear.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 11, 2008)

To be honest, I don't believe arming people will make a difference for the good in the way a mjor reorganisation of the justice system would. The laws are fine however the sentencing is a joke. people are in prison for not paying their television licences or council tax yet others who commit GBH/Abh, criminal damge etc are given community service! Every prisoner who is banged up should be looked at and the need for them to be imprisoned questioned. We have no long term care for mentally ill people so they end up inprison, they should be released to hospitals as they aren't criminals. This will make room for criminals to be sentenced as they should, custodial sentences where appropriate.
Crimes against people should rate higher sentences than crimes against property or money. if you steal millions of pounds in computer fraud you will spend longer in prison than if you raped or murdered. that is clearly wrong. sentences must not only keep offenders out of the community they must act as a detterent.

We should not be arresting people for serious crimes for them to laugh knowing that they will only be sentenced to so many hours working in the community. 

Proper sentencing would do far more to prevent much of the anti social behaviour we have now than being able to 'defend' ourselves. It would raise police morale, put back much of the faith in the justice system lost over the years of leniency. If we were to copy anything from America I'd like it to be that we appointed much younger judges who are totally in touch with moden life, the thoughts and feelings of this countries citizens.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 11, 2008)

Good insight, *tez*.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 11, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Good points from *EH* and *Tez* for the, if you'll forgive me, I'll call it the 'Gun Control' view.



Eh, I'm not really for gun control as most would probably understand it.  I was just taking issue with that particular claim.  Guns are useful tools, but they aren't a panacea.  Like everything, there are pluses and minuses to a widely armed populace.  Sadly, the end of terrorism and violent crime isn't really one of the pluses.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 11, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Good insight, *tez*.


 
thank you! I can see from my spelling I need to get to bed lol, it's been a long day!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 11, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> If the people on the planes had fought back, armed or not, there would not have been a 9/11. Boxcutters are hardly the epitome of deadly efficiency. Flight 93 showed us that, although they did have to pay with their lives to save others. The passengers on the three other flights were under the mistaken impression that a routine hijacking was going on. Firearms would have made little difference.


 
Yes but one Glock trumps boxcutters. Flight 93 would have ended up without the passengers and crew dead if even one person produced a gun and stopped the terrorist armed with box cutters.

Today we do have armed Marshals on SOME (abet a few) flights. There has been few cases where they have intervined to subdue passengers. 

I have no doubt if one of them produced a box cutter the 'hijacker' would be dead and the everyone else alive.



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> In Northern Ireland at the height of the 'troubles' every police officer was armed, every soldier was armed and a good many of the citizens had at least one weapon illegal or legal ( many people in certain jobs were allowed to be armed) and still there were terrorist attacks, bombings and shootings. The terrorists ( who were from both sides of the divide) simply used their heads and planned well.


 
But the question is, if none of the police, soldier's and citizens had been armed, how many MORE terrorist attacks would there have been? 

Do not think that the level of attacks stays the same, reguardless, of if anyone is armed. If that was the case, Israel would not have many people armed (and believe me, one heck of alot of them are armed, police, soldiiers, and civilians.) Just a while a go some civilans in Israel did stop some terrorist with pistol fire. Sometimes the good guys win.

Deaf


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 11, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Yes but one Glock trumps boxcutters. Flight 93 would have ended up without the passengers and crew dead if even one person produced a gun and stopped the terrorist armed with box cutters.



They only knew what the score was and decided to fight after at least some of the hijackers were barricaded in the cockpit.  Hence, the use of a drink cart as a battering ram.  The armed scenario would have only made a difference in the very start, when the use of force would have been least justifiable under the "business-as-usual" assumptions.  After all, the gun wielder must consider which is more dangerous from their perspective: 1) a brief stay on a runway somewhere while political prisoners are freed; or 2) rapid decompression at 30,000 feet along with potential bystander fatalities.  Airplanes are cramped; if you miss you hit either the wall or a passenger.

Of course, we all know now that the assumptions have changed and #1 is "rammed into a building", but they didn't know that at the time.  You also must consider that there were four hijackers on the flight, even armed with boxcutters.  The decision tree of our gun wielder now must include "can I rapidly take out four targets at different locations without causing #2"?

Like I said, guns aren't a panacea.

EDIT:  On further reading, the case for our hypothetical shooter at the beginning of the flight becomes even more complicated.  Voice recordings from passengers on cell phones calling out during the hijacking had multiple independent claims that the hijackers claimed to have a bomb.  Now, our shooter must consider option 2 as "everybody dies".  Remember, our shooter doesn't know yet that option 1 is "everybody dies."  *Deaf Smith*, do you think it would be a responsible decision for our shooter to try and take out four hijackers thinking they may have a bomb?  No, I think our shooter would have chosen option 1 given the information he or she had, done nothing, and by the time they knew better, it would have been too late.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Yes but one Glock trumps boxcutters. Flight 93 would have ended up without the passengers and crew dead if even one person produced a gun and stopped the terrorist armed with box cutters.
> 
> Today we do have armed Marshals on SOME (abet a few) flights. There has been few cases where they have intervined to subdue passengers.
> 
> ...


 

Well being of joint nationality I'm pleased you think my Israeli half are the good guys anyway. I've been in anti terrorist 'work' all my life, i wish it could have been as easy as you said to prevent terrorist attacks by arming people but the truth is and i suspect this is also true today in america that many people with weapons are taken by surprise when atttacked, don't actually have their weapons on them when attacked or are frozen with fear  when attacked and a fair few other things i haven't mentioned. The bomb warning mentioned by EH is one reason why someone with a gun wouldn't shoot the terrorists, if he had a'deadmans switch' in his hand shooting him dead would mean everyone died anyway. 
It's far too simple to say 'arm everyone' and all our troubles are over, I only wish it could be that easy but the truth is, it's not.


----------



## seasoned (Dec 12, 2008)

A gun will not work in every situation, just like a round house kick to the head in some cases may be a bad choice. But, IMO I would prefer to have a gun and not need it, then to need a gun and not have one. It goes without saying though, that an untrained person with a gun is as dangerous, as the deranged one with a gun.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 12, 2008)

As seasoned said, you guys seem to think the gun has to be 100 percent or it is no good. Nothing is 100 percent. But that does not mean it does not work.

Here is one like to a terrorist in Isreal that did get shot driving buldozer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25794482/http://digg.com/world_news/Bulldozer_terrorist_shot_dead_at_terror_scene_life_footage

and another

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125752

and another

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27240407_ITM

I also remember just a few years ago a Israeli woman, I think a checkout clerk, shot a suicide bomber dead with a handgun.

In the United States there is several incidents where school shooters (who to me are a form of terrorist) were stopped by armed civilians. 

One at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy. Two of the STUDENTS pulled guns and stopped the killer. 

Another appened at Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. The Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, stopped the shooter with a handgun he got from his car. 

And in  Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school shooter was stopped by restaurant owner James Strand, who was armed with a shot gun.

Yet in many cases in the U.S., in 'gun free zones', killers did rampages where no one stopped them. Wonder why?

There is also a study that was done where a room full of 'students', seeded with just a few armed people (with simulation guns). A shooter would burst in, no knowing who had a gun, and just start killing as fast as they could (again, with simulation guns.) In every try, the 'terrorist' was shot dead before they could kill more than just a few.

So you can see an armed populance can make a difference. It's not 100 percent, but then nothing is 100 percent, right? And after 9/11, it's clear to everyone there is no dealing with a terrorist. You either kill them or they will kill you and anyone they can get their hands on.

Deaf


----------



## Guardian (Dec 13, 2008)

A properly trained armed population is good, a untrained armed population is asking for trouble worst then the shooters will do in my view.

A lot of good points here.  Nothing as said is 100%, but I do agree that having one and not needing it is the answer.

As far as terrorist, school shootings or random shootings such as are mentiioned are domestic terrorism classified, but they are not terrorist that are trained and equipped as we saw in India, there is a difference and having someone armed and not trained will make little difference to those type of terrorist.  Let's keep our lines of terrorist specific here and not try and lump them together, because they are no where near each other.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 13, 2008)

Guardian said:


> A properly trained armed population is good, a untrained armed population is asking for trouble worst then the shooters will do in my view.
> 
> A lot of good points here. Nothing as said is 100%, but I do agree that having one and not needing it is the answer.
> 
> As far as terrorist, school shootings or random shootings such as are mentiioned are domestic terrorism classified, but they are not terrorist that are trained and equipped as we saw in India, there is a difference and having someone armed and not trained will make little difference to those type of terrorist. Let's keep our lines of terrorist specific here and not try and lump them together, because they are no where near each other.


 
Define terrorism, I dare you.

No one can agree on the definition and domestic terrorist can be and some are trained. Just because they come form outside of a countries borders does not make them anymore or less dangerous than those within a countries borders. Not all domestic terrorists are lone gunman and random. Remember the KKK they are listed as domestic terrorists in the US and there are some pretty well organized Eco terrorist in the US as well.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 13, 2008)

In Israel terrorist used to cross the border and attack schools. The teachers were then trained and armed because of the deaths. Now the attacks are not common. And those terrorest ARE trained like the ones in India.

Now think about that and apply it to such as what happend in India.

And Guardian, the terrorist that attacked India were not God. They made many mistakes and were not supermen. If a few had been stoped quickly, their mistakes would have been compounded. Time tables disrupted, opportunities missed, dislocation of effort... things like that when the 'plan' does not work. And a few good trained citizens could do that.

Here in Texas we have well over 300,000 CHL holders (concealed handgun license). At any give time in, say, Wal-mart, there is at least one of them shopping. You don't know which one. Turn right, and it may be the behind you, turn left, might be others to your right, or at your back. You don't know and can't tell. That is what makes it so hard to attack. Bullet can come fron any quarter once you start shooting.

Deaf


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 13, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> In Israel terrorist used to cross the border and attack schools. The teachers were then trained and armed because of the deaths. Now the attacks are not common. And those terrorest ARE trained like the ones in India.
> 
> Now think about that and apply it to such as what happend in India.
> 
> Deaf


 
The entire country of Israel has mandatory military service too. Now if you are suggesting that someplace like the US follow suite good luck with that. We whine about being checked in the airport. You want teachers in the US to be armed, good luck with that one as well. Many school officials are not all the corporative with law enforcement as it is and if you go to an inner city school they are already fighting a loosing battle at keeping guns, knives and all sorts of dangerous instruments out of schools that are brought in by students already.

Listen guys I am not antigun but I am way too cynical and dealt with way too many drunks, idiots and drunken idiots to trust guns in the hands of the majority of people out there. I wish I could take credit for what I am about to post but I can&#8217;t is comes from a friend of mine that has been an LEO for years. &#8220;I am not against guns; I am against drunks and idiots with guns.&#8221;

Well that is not exactly what he said, I removed a colorful expletive


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 13, 2008)

Now Xue,

Are you saying the majority of the citizens are 'drunks or idiots'? Now think about that.... And as for teachers being armed, well one of those stories I posted WAS an assistant principle. Two of them in another case were STUDENTS at the school that did have permits to carry!

Like I posted, in Texas we have 300,000 + CHL holders.

For the Period: 09/01/2007 - 08/31/2008 there were 348 permint holders license revolked (and out of 300,000 that's .116 percent!) Now a few were for criminal activities. But many were for such as not paying child support, or taxes, or not paying up on their school loans! Again, .00116 is a might small percentage!

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/admini...l/PDF/2008 Fiscal/ByAge/FY08AgeLicRevoked.pdf

What is more the conviction rates in Texas, for 2006 look like this:

61,539 people were convicted of felonies. Of those 140 were CHL holders! That's not many! LIke .23 percent.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2006.pdf


And our population for 2006 is 23,507,783! So 140 CHL holders were in trouble out of a 23 million population and 300,000 CHL holders! In short... Armed civilians in Texas were far more law abiding than the general population! 

http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_1266.shtml

I'm not worried about them being 'drunks or idiots'. They are neither. And they obey the laws.

Deaf


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 13, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Now Xue,
> 
> Are you saying the majority of the citizens are 'drunks or idiots'? Now think about that.... And as for teachers being armed, well one of those stories I posted WAS an assistant principle. Two of them in another case were STUDENTS at the school that did have permits to carry!


 
Well let see...I said I am way to cynical...dealt with too many idiots, drunks or drunken idiots.... you figure it out.

Oh and you must have missed this part of my previous post since you did bring Isreal into it after all as an example as to why we need more guns

The entire country of Israel has mandatory military service too. Now if you are suggesting that someplace like the US follow suite good luck with that. We whine about being checked in the airport.


And lastly I will make this as clear as I can.

In a terrorist situation a gun in the hand of someone trained to use it, meaning more than target shooting, is not necessarily a bad thing but it is no guarantee of safety either.

A gun in the hand of someone that is not trained, legally obtained or not, is not a good thing. 

But to the OP, I have said it before and I will say it again, since this point appears to be getting missed and before this whole thread degenerate into a pro-gun anti-gun argument. I will repeat this

Comparing terrorism of 1909 to terrorism of the 21st century is roughly the same as comparing trench warfare to nuclear warfare. It is not the same and using 1909 terrorism as a justification to arm the populace of the 21st century is at best silly and shows a lack of understanding of terrorism today.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 14, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> In a terrorist situation a gun in the hand of someone trained to use it, meaning more than target shooting, is not necessarily a bad thing but it is no guarantee of safety either.


 
Nothing is a guarantee Xue. Even SWAT teams fail sometimes. But it's sure better than sitting there waiting for them to kill you. All people ask is the means to fight back if they decide to do so, not a guarantee.



Xue Sheng said:


> A gun in the hand of someone that is not trained, legally obtained or not, is not a good thing.


 
I've read of litle old ladies defending themselves with handguns quite sucessfully, and they were not 'combat't trained. Let the owner of the gun decide what is safe for themselves and what is a 'good thing'.



Xue Sheng said:


> Comparing terrorism of 1909 to terrorism of the 21st century is roughly the same as comparing trench warfare to nuclear warfare. It is not the same and using 1909 terrorism as a justification to arm the populace of the 21st century is at best silly and shows a lack of understanding of terrorism today.


 
Those cases I posted were quite modern. Happend very recently. And the people overcame the terrorist. *They are NOT all a bunch of rambos*. Many times they get mentaly challenged (yes retarted people), or lame, or ignorat people to do the deeds and not themselves.

For those interested here is some history of terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism

http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php

http://terrorism.about.com/od/originshistory/a/Anarchism.htm

Terrorism is nothing new.

Deaf


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 14, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Those cases I posted were quite modern. Happend very recently. And the people overcame the terrorist. *They are NOT all a bunch of rambos*. Many times they get mentaly challenged (yes retarted people), or lame, or ignorat people to do the deeds and not themselves.
> 
> For those interested here is some history of terrorism.
> 
> ...


 
Then why the title 1909 and the OP based on it in the first place. If you wanted to justify arming the world to fight terrorism why not use the 21st century all throughout the post.

And you are right terrorism is nothing new, neither is the car. But a 1909 Model T is quite different form a 2008 Mustang

Terrorism today is not the same as terrorism in 1909. I asked you before if you wanted me to suggest a couple of books on terrorism to help you out with that concept, they will give you a bit more detail than the links you provided, more history more of the evolution of terrorism. If you do then I will if you don't then I will not offer or ask again.

But beyond that I had a couple of thoughts last night on this. One also from the friend of mine I quoted earlier. After 9/11 his department bought guns for all patrol cars, sorry I do not remember the type, but he said it was a good gun however not for a city, It would kill the guy you were shooting at and a few that were standing behind him as well. Now you want to arm all citizens to fight terrorism and I highly doubt that means a standardization of the guns they have so what happens when the terrorist on the plane is shot and that bullet travels on to kill others. 

Also most Americans want absolutely no responsibility for their own security they want it taken care of and they want it to NOT interfere with them in any way shape or form. What do you do about those people?

You are apparently of the opinion that more guns makes us safer and that all should have one, I admit I may be reading you wrong since I really do not know you and this is a web discussion, I do not agree with you and that is fairly obvious but I am really interested in how you would plan on handling those that want nothing to do with guns

Also I might as well ask you this as well

Define Terrorism?


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 14, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> But beyond that I had a couple of thoughts last night on this. One also from the friend of mine I quoted earlier. After 9/11 his department bought guns for all patrol cars, sorry I do not remember the type, but he said it was a good gun however not for a city, It would kill the guy you were shooting at and a few that were standing behind him as well. Now you want to arm all citizens to fight terrorism and I highly doubt that means a standardization of the guns they have so *what happens when the terrorist on the plane is shot and that bullet travels on to kill others*.


  Cold answer: fewer people die than if the terrorist brought the plane down.  Obviously this could happen even if an air marshal was doing the shooting.  



Xue Sheng said:


> Also most Americans want absolutely no responsibility for their own security they want it taken care of and they want it to NOT interfere with them in any way shape or form. *What do you do about those people*?


This is going to sound harsh, but who cares?...if they want to live their lives as sheep, depending on someone else for their safety, then so be it.  They can continue to go through life expecting the government to take care of every need and for the police to come to the rescue anytime they have a problem.
 However, there are those of us who choose to be more self-reliant and we should not be disarmed or demonized because we don't fall into step with all the rest.



Xue Sheng said:


> You are apparently of the opinion that more guns makes us safer and that all should have one, I admit I may be reading you wrong since I really do not know you and this is a web discussion, I do not agree with you and that is fairly obvious but I am really interested in how you would plan on handling those that want nothing to do with guns


IMO, this falls under my comments above...if someone doesn't want anything to do with guns, fine.  But just because _they_ have an irrational fear of weapons doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to have mine.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 14, 2008)

Xue,

First off there is nearly a million CCW holders in the United States, that is they pack personal heat. And several states, New Mexico, Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska allow open carry(there may be more, but I know those four.) And two of them, Vermont and Alaska, don't even require citizens to get a CCW to carry a handgun concealed!

Now that's not exactly a majority of U.S. citizens, but that's an awful lot. And nearly half of the adult population in the U.S. owns guns. So I don't know about the 'majority' not wanting 'responsibility for their own security '. And notice in those states it's not "Dodge City". Actually less crime than the northern states that do heavly restrict gun ownership and the right to carry guns.

I'm of the opinon that it's every citizens RIGHT to own guns and if they so desire they can carry them (and if they don't want to carry one, fine with me!) If they break the law, then they pay the price. *The right does not come without responsibility *(unlike voting, were irresponsibilty seems to be quite common.)

Will totaly arming the population stop terrorism? Well I've never said it would. What I have said is that allowing those that want to carry weapons to defend themselves would stop some of the attacks and cause others to fail to achieve their objectives. And that's all for the good.

Terrorist still use the same methods they have always done, Xue. Car bombs are nothing new. Drive by shootings are nothing new. Hijacking planes are nothing new. Been done before. Suicide bombers, ask the Japanese about that.

Ever hear of Vlad the Impaler? Now THAT was a terrorist! And religious terrorism is really nothing new! Ask the Catholic Church (and I'm Catholic!) Religious fanaticism goes way way back and many of them were quite willing to die for their cause.

So what I'm saying is those that want to defend themselves, well let them! It's their right and their responsibility.

Deaf


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 15, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Xue,
> 
> First off there is nearly a million CCW holders in the United States, that is they pack personal heat. And several states, New Mexico, Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska allow open carry(there may be more, but I know those four.) And two of them, Vermont and Alaska, don't even require citizens to get a CCW to carry a handgun concealed!
> 
> ...


 
You obviously have little understanding of terrorism in the 21st century.

Listen you are the one that started this whole thing based on 1909 with minor knowledge of terrorism today and I responded. I frankly have no opinion either way as to arming or not arming however I do fully believe you logic is flawed on the topic as it applies to terrorism in the 21st century and you are the one that threw in 1909 terrorism, not me. 

And I am still waiting for your definition of terrorism and your response to your other basis for arming teachers being Israel and the fact you appear to have omitted the fact that Israel has mandatory military training and the US doesn't.

As to Vlad the Impaler to the Romanians he is a hero to the Ottomans he is something else. Is a person fighting to protect his country which has been invaded a terrorist? Not usually but his tactics could be defined as terrorism but is he a terrorist? To be honest I haev never heard any reputable source define hiim as such but he was most certainly incredibly cruel. It is not as cut and dry as you seem to think it is. So then labeling someone a terrorist would depend on who you talk to, but yet there are a few universally excepted parts of the definition. 

Kamikazes are they terrorists? You know with this one I got to say no. And you would know that to if you knew what any of the definitions of terrorism. I have never heard them defined as terrorists so I do not know what you threw them in. That is if that is what you are referring to with the Japanese and Suicide bombs. 

Catholics well some could easily call the Crusaders terrorists but at the time they were justified by the Pope. And to help you out a bit here not all religious fanatics are terrorists and not all terrorists are religious. You see if you knew the history of terrorism and its evolution you would know a lot more about this and why it is or is not considered terrorism by all or in some cases any. If you look to some definitions of terrorism the founding fathers of this country were terrorists as well, are they? Well it depends on who you talk to, but then maybe it doesn't. 

Learn the history and learn how it has changed and you will understand better. If you believe you already know, and it appears that you do then I'm just wasting my time. 

My best, good luck to you and later.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 15, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> Cold answer: fewer people die than if the terrorist brought the plane down. Obviously this could happen even if an air marshal was doing the shooting.


 
I'm ok with an Air Marshall bieing on the plane and armed.



KenpoTex said:


> This is going to sound harsh, but who cares?...if they want to live their lives as sheep, depending on someone else for their safety, then so be it. They can continue to go through life expecting the government to take care of every need and for the police to come to the rescue anytime they have a problem.
> However, there are those of us who choose to be more self-reliant and we should not be disarmed or demonized because we don't fall into step with all the rest.


 
I'm ok with this too.



KenpoTex said:


> IMO, this falls under my comments above...if someone doesn't want anything to do with guns, fine. But just because they have an irrational fear of weapons doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to have mine.


First I have no irrational fear of the weapon. To be honest I am a better shot with a pistol than a rifle. I am told that is not normal but I have never been accused of being normal before so why start now 

However none of that should be confused with me being a good shot, I am at best average. 

I have no issue with guns really, but as I said I have an issue with idiots, drunks and the highly untrained with guns. I do not think they should be handed out like candy nor do I feel that every person is competent enough to own one.

I do have an issue with a thread that is using terrorism as a justification and basing that on terrorism in 1909 which does show a rather large lack of knowledge about terrorism of today.

You see my whole issue with this thread has never been an issue with guns, it is using a flawed understanding of terrorism to justify more guns that I have a problem with. You want to justify gun ownership use facts and reality not speculation based on terrorism of a 100 years ago and bringing that forward to today justify it by claiming terrorism has not changed in 100 years and then throw out historical example that are not considered terrorism as justification. If you ever presented this to anyone in authority as your argument for gun ownership you would give them great joy as they have people with much more knowledge than I on the topic easily rip your argument apart.

All I ask is that someone reads a book and learns about the topic before they use it as a justification, and I am not referring to KenpoTex


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 15, 2008)

Xue,

Well then what is your definition of 'terrorism'? Why is it so bad a boog-a-boo that letting those that want to arm themselves seems so bad an idea to you?

Deaf


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 15, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Xue,
> 
> Well then what is your definition of 'terrorism'? Why is it so bad a boog-a-boo that letting those that want to arm themselves seems so bad an idea to you?
> 
> Deaf



Answering a question with a question and the exact same question to boot...no sorry but I asked you first. But since you don't answer any of my questions I really do not expect you to answer anything anymore.

And please point out where I said it was bad for people who want to arm themselves to do so. I do however think it is a bad idea to give out guns like candy to people who know nothing about them and use a flawed view of terrorism to justify it. 

You are trying real hard to make this a pro-gun/anti-gun issue and if you read the last part of my post to KenpoTex you would already know that is not the issue that I have with any of this as a matter of fact if you read some of my previous posts you would already know that is not the issue I have with this post of yours.

You might want to read what I post a bit more carefully and get back to me.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 15, 2008)

Xue,

All I want to know is why you think any definition of terrorism would make a difference as to weither people arm themselves or not? School or anywhere else. The methods of terrorism are still the same, definition or not.

As the first of this thread showed, even in 1909, an awful lot of people packed heat in England (with no back ground checks or force training) and when anarchist tried to 'terrorize' the good subjects (well is IS England) not only helped the cops but intervened themselves. And compareing that to what happend in Mumbai (Bombay) and the lack of arms for anyone is what the thread is about.

Oh, and BTW, every read what Gen. Carl Spaatz said to Gen. Artur Harris when Harris wanted the USAAF to bomb cities? Spaatz had a rather different definition of terrorism than you apparently have (books or no books.) And 'kamikaze' is very much considered a form of terrorism as any google search will show many links to articles where that is actually caled 'kamikaze terrorism'!

And Xue, the FBI has it's own definition, the U.S. Department of Defense has it's own defintion, the League of Nations Convention Definition of Terrorism, 1937 had a definition, U.S. Law has it's own definition, The
 Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism had it's own definition... see where I'm going with this?

Deaf


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 15, 2008)

Folks, 
Terrorism is a very complex, and constantly evolving, field of study.  Let's remember that, and let's keep the discussion appropriately fixed on the issues, and not each other.  Especially since the issue gets so interwoven with religion and politics, it's easy to lose the main issue.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 16, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Xue,
> 
> All I want to know is why you think any definition of terrorism would make a difference as to weither people arm themselves or not? School or anywhere else. The methods of terrorism are still the same, definition or not.
> 
> ...


 
Yes and you are so convinced you know what it is and the people who actually deal with it can't agree on a definition. That is what I am trying to get at here with you, they don't agree what exactly constitutes terrorism how is it you are so sure you know all there is to know about it.

And will you PLEASE stop trying to make this a gun issue, it is not, and before you ask me one more time about me being against people arming themselves to protect themselves PLEASE point out where I said that. 

Read a book on the topic and you might actually learn about what is and is not terrorism. I could call the revolution patriotic terrorism by the definitions but is it terrorism?

You also have said that Terrorism is Terrorism a car bomb is a car bomb a drive by is a drive by (by the way not all drive bys are defined as terrorism) which says you believe in 100 years terrorism has not changed and that terrorism is no different today than it was 100 years ago. Cars have changed, weapons have changed, in 1909 there was no space program, communications has changed, science has advanced, there is a much larger population, we have an internet now, there was no wide spread plane travel in 1909 and yet you want to believe that terrorism has existed in a vacuum and not changed. And an awful lot of terrorist organizations that are around today didn't exist in 1909. You want to lump them into one nice neat category "Terrorist" and give them a common face and that is a rather dangerous point of view if you are honestly concerned about terrorism and safety. But I do feel you are much more concerned about the proliferation of guns than actual safety and people being able to protect themselves. Education is also a great way to protect yourself by the way

You example of a car bomb; Do you have any idea of the number of ways there are to detonate a bomb today as compared to 100 years ago. Do you have any idea of the advancement in explosives since 1909? Are the guns of 1909 the same as today? Is the ammo the same today as it was in 1909?

Now here is something for you that you would get if you read a book or two on the topic. And to be honest I do not expect you to read any of this and your only response will be right back to what do I have against people arming themselves. But maybe some one else will read it. 

Terrorist of today study the terrorists that came before and learn from them. They study Michael Collins and Che Guevara and people like that and learn from them. This is one reason (and only one) why terrorism of the 21st century is not the same as terrorism form 1909 as a matter of fact the England of today is not much like the England of 1909.

Last time and them I will stop wasting my time and I will await your inevitable response of "Xue why are you against people arming themselves for protection" (just highlight that and quote it in your next post to save yourself time).

I am not against guns I am not against people getting guns for protection. I am against people that have no training or experience with guns owning a gun because it is at best a false sense of security and likely will get them injured or killed. If someone has been trained or buys a gun and gets training on how to use it then go for it. But handing them out like candy I am not really for, putting them in a box of Cracker Jacks as the surprise inside is not something I would support either. 

My absolute BIGGEST issue with the entire post is your complete lack of understanding of terrorism in the 21st century and your continued use of it to justify your agenda. You don&#8217;t have much of an understanding as to what is terrorism or what it has become but you are using it to justify your argument and want me to believe you know all about it. You want more guns feel free to post it Ad nauseum and use facts to support it and you will hear nothing from me. But used a flawed view of something as serious as terrorism and I will respond, or at least I did respond, after this I would be letting you waste my time and as I said I am done with that. 

Now please feel free to ask me one more time why I am against people arming themselves for protection. Please once again try to make this a pro-gun verses anti-gun issue and do what you will because I am absolutely done wasting my time.

Now since you likely did not read much of what I posted and skimmed is and hit the high points that fit you agenda I will say to any one that does actually want a book recommendation please feel free to PM me I would be more than happy to recommend a few on terrorism that are a bit more reputable than the majority of stuff you find on Google.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 16, 2008)

Xue,

Where have I posted  "Xue why are you against people arming themselves for protection" ? I don't see that in my post. Did I post that anywhere?

And why do you feel I need to read the books you offer? Especilly after I showed you there are so many definitions of 'terrorism'. Is you definition so different from the ones I listed?

Xue, while there are more methods than say 100 years ago, people are also more eductated. I see no reason to think they can keep up with the newer methods, just as the terrorist, as you say, study to come up with new ways.

I would not just give up and, you know, think terrorist have the upper hand ever time they try something.

In fact, Xue, can you give me any places where terrorism has worked and changed the country as they desired it? Did Che succeed? Michael Collins? Has terrorism been a success? The radical Moslims?

Like I said before, they are not supermen. In fact in Mumbai they made several huge errors. Alot of their plan did not work (as the surviving terrorst said himself.)

Deaf


----------

