Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
from your link it appears she is right...
The main premise of gun proponents is the ability to defend yourself from bad guys/gals, and the government.
That's why they are making noise about Brits can't do that, in the wake of this tragedy.
Maybe it's time for the British reaction to not be going into mourning, but get pissed and go into action.
Keep calm and carry on doesn't work.
|
Keep calm and carry on does work. As a response to terrorists, not being terrified is a good response - that is a victory.
I am a little pissed off by the general tenor of some of the US reportage on this. All this crap about us being 'under siege' and 'terrified'. Like we're all left cowering in our homes and scared of going out.
We are not. People in Manchester and London, and indeed every other major city are continuing as normal. We will not let this foster dire hatred and change our national sense of self, because a handful of dickheads decided to follow the ISIL death cult.
There's not much the average citizenry (or even police) can do to prevent a suicide bomber like in Manchester. The attack on London could have been significantly worse, had the response time not been so fast and had people not followed the guideline advice on what to do in the event of an incident.
All three terrorists dead on the ground within 8 minutes of the first 999 calls is about as good as it gets in terms of incident response.
the idea that a bunch of civilians carrying concealed weapons might have been able to deal with the situation quicker is all very well, except that if gun ownership followed the same pattern as in the States the majority of them would have no training, or minimal training. Knowing how to handle a firearm is one thing. Knowing how to handle a firearm in a high stress and rapidly evolving situation is entirely another. The area of London they attacked (Borough Market) is a twisty, turny place, full of street furniture and crowded with people. Even with most people cleared from the area and taking cover in restaurants and pubs, the highly trained firearms responders still managed to clip a by stander with a stray bullet.
I don't think Joe Bloggs, with his 6 sessions of firearms training and a few hours on the range would have been an asset - aside from the risk of him hitting a civilian instead of the terrorist, at that stage nobody really knew how many attackers there were, whether there were more coming from other places and what their intentions were - someone in a different part of the crowd firing a weapon would have likely caused further panic.
The police acted fast and with astonishing efficacy and the number of people seriously hurt could have been much higher.
I am sick to death of the finger wagging, gleeful attempt to characterise the citizens of my country as cowards and sheep because we choose not to routinely arm ourselves to the teeth.
There have been terrorist attacks in the US where guns are everywhere. There are how many school shootings in the US?
The gun debate only really resonates in the US. It's not a factor here and there are very few voices calling for a change to that. That does not make us complicit in our own victimhood.