The old chestnut of firearms for self defence - a question..

[froggy]

Breacher,

Your question adresses 2 distinct scenarios : a criminal one & a terrorist one. I don't fear the 1st one despite living in a fairly dodgy part of London but I do worry about the second one . Having said that on focusing on the second "terrorist" scenario, you make valid points but :

a) even if we are not quite there yet, it works in Israel and I don't think we are more stupid than they are.

b) A lot of the civilian shooters I know are ex military & much better/safer shot than the average armed copper patrolling French streets that whinge having to shoot its compulsory 50 rounds/year.

c) if 1 or 2 of those Bataclan' s spectators had been carrying, chances are that we would not have buried so many and that there would not be so many orphans today.

[joe]

Breacher,

Your question adresses 2 distinct scenarios : a criminal one & a terrorist one. I don't fear the 1st one despite living in a fairly dodgy part of London but I do worry about the second one . Having said that on focusing on the second "terrorist" scenario, you make valid points but :

a) even if we are not quite there yet, it works in Israel and I don't think we are more stupid than they are.

b) A lot of the civilian shooters I know are ex military & much better/safer shot than the average armed copper patrolling French streets that whinge having to shoot its compulsory 50 rounds/year.

c) if 1 or 2 of those Bataclan' s spectators had been carrying, chances are that we would not have buried so many and that there would not be so many orphans today.

Are there demands in France for personal protection pistols ?? Either by gun owners or public

[AJSawyer]

No, just no.

Imagine a bunch of barely trained people rocking handguns in the bataclan... There'd be an increase in the the death count, either from people shooting other armed public, or just missing under the stress and adrenaline of an armed incident.

Then the police would turn up... So then the highly strung person with the gun starts shooting at them, or just doesn't drop it when told and ends up getting two centre mass...


Also, from the day to day self defence outlook, good luck drawing on someone with a knife unless they're more than 21feet away.

The reality is, you're going to have a massive adrenaline dump, not be able to draw/aim/fire, and if you do end up doing one of those things, you'll probably shoot something other than your intended target.

I wouldn't trust the vast majority of joe public with a gun to protect me or my family.

Let's not turn the UK into the United States please...

[Gazoo]

No, just no.

Imagine a bunch of barely trained people rocking handguns in the bataclan... There'd be an increase in the the death count, either from people shooting other armed public, or just missing under the stress and adrenaline of an armed incident.

Then the police would turn up... So then the highly strung person with the gun starts shooting at them, or just doesn't drop it when told and ends up getting two centre mass...


Also, from the day to day self defence outlook, good luck drawing on someone with a knife unless they're more than 21feet away.

The reality is, you're going to have a massive adrenaline dump, not be able to draw/aim/fire, and if you do end up doing one of those things, you'll probably shoot something other than your intended target.

I wouldn't trust the vast majority of joe public with a gun to protect me or my family.

Let's not turn the UK into the United States please...

agree completely

[polemass]

Breacher,being 6ft+ (?) makes a difference in some situations.... or for this reason there are NO situations... ;-)
I was chased away from phone box in Woking few years ago only because my conversation was not in English...Looked at the barrel of a handgun 10ft away from my face,when stopped car highjack -I saw it coming few seconds before... (Not in UK,probably gas pistol but.....maybe not).
It is all about decision making and TRAINING-if you were in the shtf scenario before,your chances are bigger (US grunts in train attack,France).
Then again-how many flat tyres have you got in your life?1,2?but we all have spares....statistically it is pointless....
So why not whalter ppk/makarov under your belt???more sense!-but ONLY when you know how to deal with those situations...
Anyone can try advancing target at Melville-this is eye opener.....and training plus more training...the same as driving a car everyday...me think

[Chuck]

No, just no.

Imagine a bunch of barely trained people rocking handguns in the bataclan... There'd be an increase in the the death count, either from people shooting other armed public, or just missing under the stress and adrenaline of an armed incident.

Then the police would turn up... So then the highly strung person with the gun starts shooting at them, or just doesn't drop it when told and ends up getting two centre mass...

Also, from the day to day self defence outlook, good luck drawing on someone with a knife unless they're more than 21feet away.

The reality is, you're going to have a massive adrenaline dump, not be able to draw/aim/fire, and if you do end up doing one of those things, you'll probably shoot something other than your intended target.

I wouldn't trust the vast majority of joe public with a gun to protect me or my family.

Let's not turn the UK into the United States please...

And there we have it - the old chestnut.

FACT: polie marksmen ( ) slaughtered a police dog with theit well aimed, well trained fire at one of the terrorist raids in France - so that kinda scres up THAT theory..

By the time police arrive a TRAINED shooter could have killed a damn site mot#re. By the time they actually get INTO the building (usually a SWAT type lot) it's a bit late in the day.

FACT: the average person CAN be trained to handle a firearm better than your average cop or soldier.
FACT: No such thing has ever happened.
FACT: Trainig IS available and would be madatory
FACT: The USA is nowhere near what you suggest, far from it.
FACT: Armed civvies tend to spend more time practising to whatever degree than police or military.
FACT: Everyone assumes that those with a gun are NOT trained. SOme are NOt but many are.
FACT: Terrorists are COWRADS - that's why they choose places where there are unarmed victims, even in countries where guns are legal.

FACT: A gun is a tool of LAST RESORT. By the time you feel you NEED a gun it's too damn late!

FACT: the old chestnut of "untrained people" is a sad excuse to deny people the CHANCE to a least TY and survuve. usually postulated by politicians with no idea whatsoever because they are never at risk..and people who probably have never been trained to fire defensive handguns.

froggy / breacher: good points

BTW: Have the security TEAM AND COMPANY OWNERS at the concert been arrested - because they damn well should have been if they survived!! Corporate manslaughter for one....also whoever in the "security services" let these people run around even though they were "watched"!

Whatever, fair comment but at the end of the day if you were in that situation would YOU want a gun?? Somehow I think Yes.

[mullen7]

The problem with the military/police and their shooting skills, is the fact that they are forced into doing it. And people that are forced to do something, that they don't necessarily want to do, do not do it as well, as someone who actually wants to do it.

Hence why the 'armed' civvies as you put it are a better shot, they choose to shoot, choose to improve and choose to actually learn about the weapons they use. In the services they're forced to. Maybe not so the army, but certainly the police.

[AJSawyer]

@Mullen7

No one in the police is forced to be a firearms officer... they're all volunteers. They take pride in their training, if they don't, and they screw up, they end up down a long dark lonely road of legal problems, as previously seen.

No, just no.

Imagine a bunch of barely trained people rocking handguns in the bataclan... There'd be an increase in the the death count, either from people shooting other armed public, or just missing under the stress and adrenaline of an armed incident.

Then the police would turn up... So then the highly strung person with the gun starts shooting at them, or just doesn't drop it when told and ends up getting two centre mass...

Also, from the day to day self defence outlook, good luck drawing on someone with a knife unless they're more than 21feet away.

The reality is, you're going to have a massive adrenaline dump, not be able to draw/aim/fire, and if you do end up doing one of those things, you'll probably shoot something other than your intended target.

I wouldn't trust the vast majority of joe public with a gun to protect me or my family.

Let's not turn the UK into the United States please...

And there we have it - the old chestnut.

FACT: polie marksmen ( ) slaughtered a police dog with theit well aimed, well trained fire at one of the terrorist raids in France - so that kinda scres up THAT theory..

Uhuh. So what about UK firearms officers?

By the time police arrive a TRAINED shooter could have killed a damn site mot#re. By the time they actually get INTO the building (usually a SWAT type lot) it's a bit late in the day.

FACT: the average person CAN be trained to handle a firearm better than your average cop or soldier.

I don't doubt, but as you say "Can". I doubt most people would give the time and effort it really needs. Also, you can't train for how your body is going to react.

FACT: No such thing has ever happened.

What are we saying has never happened?

FACT: Trainig IS available and would be madatory

That's good, if it's mandatory then we can see a bit of progress.

FACT: The USA is nowhere near what you suggest, far from it.

Oh no, that stand your ground law is a great idea... or not...

FACT: Armed civvies tend to spend more time practising to whatever degree than police or military.

Aha, so shooting down a range in controlled conditions constitutes practising that would be effective in a real world situation?

FACT: Everyone assumes that those with a gun are NOT trained. SOme are NOt but many are.

Well, in the UK you don't have to be "trained" to possess a firearm. Going back to the above point of mandatory training as a hypothetical option then.

FACT: Terrorists are COWRADS - that's why they choose places where there are unarmed victims, even in countries where guns are legal.

No dispute on them being cowards, but they attacked a city where every cop has a gun.

FACT: A gun is a tool of LAST RESORT. By the time you feel you NEED a gun it's too damn late!

By the time a situation develops and you want to DRAW your gun, it's too damn late. Doesn't matter if you have one on your or not.

FACT: the old chestnut of "untrained people" is a sad excuse to deny people the CHANCE to a least TY and survuve. usually postulated by politicians with no idea whatsoever because they are never at risk..and people who probably have never been trained to fire defensive handguns.

I'd rather not get shot by a stray bullet from a random.

Also, can we please not mark up OPINION as FACT. It's rather misleading.

froggy / breacher: good points

BTW: Have the security TEAM AND COMPANY OWNERS at the concert been arrested - because they damn well should have been if they survived!! Corporate manslaughter for one....also whoever in the "security services" let these people run around even though they were "watched"!

Whatever, fair comment but at the end of the day if you were in that situation would YOU want a gun?? Somehow I think Yes.

I'd just like to go back to this point in particular

usually postulated by politicians with no idea whatsoever because they are never at risk

I'm going to out myself here. I'm a copper. I work in a major UK City, I carry a pathetic baton that would probably collapse the moment I tried to hit someone with it, and a spray that does me more harm than the threat. I deal with violent people on a weekly, but mostly daily basis.

I do not feel the need to carry a firearm. I'm at risk. I don't want one, I don't need one.

I really enjoy shooting, and find firearms interesting, but do I need one for self defence? Absolutely not.

[breacher]

Breacher,

Your question adresses 2 distinct scenarios : a criminal one & a terrorist one. I don't fear the 1st one despite living in a fairly dodgy part of London but I do worry about the second one . Having said that on focusing on the second "terrorist" scenario, you make valid points but :

a) even if we are not quite there yet, it works in Israel and I don't think we are more stupid than they are.

b) A lot of the civilian shooters I know are ex military & much better/safer shot than the average armed copper patrolling French streets that whinge having to shoot its compulsory 50 rounds/year.

c) if 1 or 2 of those Bataclan' s spectators had been carrying, chances are that we would not have buried so many and that there would not be so many orphans today.

I tend to agree Yves - I am playing devils advocate / worse case scenario, as usual :)

A - Yes, it works in many places - but the bad guy tends to be first to the trigger as he has less to "worry" about in terms of legality and safety. I would be very interested in post incident reports of bad guy versus passerby with weapon - I am not sure enough is published or at least I cannot find it.

B - I agree there too - I have worked with some "barn door" types.

C - Quite possibly. If the passerby was on the flank or behind the bad guys. If I was actually in the cafe and 2 bad guys are a few metres away at the front of the cafe blazing away on auto or even semi auto in my direction, I am not sure how effective I would be. In the concert hall, same applies - ambush them ? yes. Take them on during an "assault" ? Hell no !

I just pray I never am caught up like that - must be a hell of a feeling of impotency to be there and unable to react due to lack of the tool for the job !

[breacher]

The problem with the military/police and their shooting skills, is the fact that they are forced into doing it. And people that are forced to do something, that they don't necessarily want to do, do not do it as well, as someone who actually wants to do it.

Hence why the 'armed' civvies as you put it are a better shot, they choose to shoot, choose to improve and choose to actually learn about the weapons they use. In the services they're forced to. Maybe not so the army, but certainly the police.

There is a world of difference between target shooting and killing in self defence.

I have brought out target shooters who broke down in tears when unable to shoot a fox or deer.

Accurate is all well and good. But a certain mindset is required to remain accurate under EXTREME stress and be willing to kill.