Thread: another london attack

It's interesting to me that people don't want more laws and don't believe the Police can help.

In some respects, thats quite a defeatist attitude in dealing with this Islamic terrorism thing - which is not going to go away.

I think the laws, the police and the Judiciary play important role, and all, of course are limited in the immediate face of a terrorist attack, or in dealing with the rise of terrorism generally.

However, if you really don't believe more laws or more police will help, that only leaves one other option - an armed citizenry.

Interesting to note on this point, that former INTERPOL Secretary General Ron Noble was anti gun - certainly anti having armed citizenry - until the 2013 Nairobi shopping mall attacks - where a handful of armed citizens saved hundreds of lives against a terrorist attack.

All it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun - and whilst the worst attack this country has faced was in Port Arthur, ask yourself - if just one good guy with a gun was there that day, could the outcome have been different?

LAFO's (Law Abiding Firearm Owners) have been vilified in this country for too long. Amongst their ranks are Doctors, nurses, Lawyers, past and present members of the armed forces and Police and many other fine and upstanding members of the community.

Whilst any of those titles alone should not deem a citizen safe to arm themselves in public - it does speak to the fact that the vilification and irrational fear of guns since 1996 has meant we cant have a mature conversation in this country about self defence in the face of rising terrorism.

Some very good points there Andy130

Originally Posted by trout1105

Some very good points there Andy130

I'm sure plenty here will disagree with you Trout1105

Who cares, I'm one of the "LAFO's" and I am quite certain that "IF" I had to I would fire on someone running amok with a knife or firearm to prevent further bloodshed.

I am not too sure if those not trained in combat situations involving civilians would be very helpful.

Found the article quoting Noble:

Exclusive: After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders 'Armed Citizenry' - ABC News

Originally Posted by trog

I am not too sure if those not trained in combat situations involving civilians would be very helpful.

It's interesting that people often make calls for the involvement of the Army, when in fact they are usually the ones with the least amount of training in pretty much any scenario involving civilians on home turf. Our Police are far better trained in domestic scenarios than our Military.

I often hear calls for the SAS, for example. Anyone who has ever worn the uniform of the ARA will know just how few SAS there actually are, and how much intel and tactical discussion goes into their deployment.

The situation in the Borough Market couldn't wait for the (British) SAS. By the time they deployed there could have been upwards of 100 people dead. The Met's policy of 24/7 rolling anti terror squads would seem to have paid off this time.

Originally Posted by manic

There are two types of terrorist that carry out these types of attack on the general public.

1) The homegrown or lonewolf terrorist

Homegrowns are depressed, angry, mentally ill individuals who blame society/governnent around them for their perceived failures. They lack purpose. They feel exluded or hard done by. They do not want to live. Suicide is an option. They look for ways to blame society. ISIS/gihad propaganda delivers a way to die, punish, have purpose and be brave. This madness of the mind will exist in our society even if all muslims are deported and ISIS doctrine erased from the planet. The mentally ill have other ways to kill themselves and make a scene.

2) The foreign militant.

These are fighters from war torn countries. They may have had their loved ones killed, their friends locked up, tortured, homes destroyed. They take up arms. They look for vengance. They join militia . They get paid. They serve the attrocities of war through channels of propaganda to stoke the fires of anger, to recruit. They see foreign intervention. They see the flow of money, weapons, use of drones. They try and strike back.

-----------

We can put as many police out there as we like it will make little difference.

We would be safer if we were not engaged in wars abroad that do not threaten our sovreignty.

We would be more widely respected if we did not make an economy from weapons of war sold to foriegn entities engaged or likely to engage in offensive wars and oppresion.



We shoudnt be training and backing one militia in a country far far away against another militia in a country far far away.

We should be willing to sacrifice economic gain for what is right.

So what next?

Only two? Are you sure? Do you have definitive evidence?