The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 28, 2017, 01:15 PM   #1
OhioGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2016
Posts: 1,089
How can we guard against this?

http://www.newsweek.com/american-isi...ootings-761115

Assuming the article is actually accurate, what actions (if any) could prevent someone with no criminal record from acquiring a weapon to use in carrying out an attack? Especially if the bad actor is a "converted" home grown US citizen who isn't on anyone's watch list or radar? A guy with a criminal background and history of domestic abuse slipped through...how much easier for some young college student who's never had a speeding ticket but has become disgruntled and radicalized by YouTube?

Clearly the tone of the article is meant to imply that the availability of guns (at all) is making this country more vulnerable to terrorists. So there's an agenda to the writing and I'm suspicious of that. But it is disconcerting.

Someone i know recently observed that people who are intent upon carrying out attacks may not be deterred at all by the idea of armed citizens... they'll just increase their arms and armor. I could see that. A shopper armed with a Shield or PPS won't be much of a match for a suicidal attacker with a rifle and body armor.

Not sure where I'm going with it. I carry to protect myself and my family from this if it ever happens. But it seems the bad guys are upping their game.
OhioGuy is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 01:46 PM   #2
tony pasley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: western north carolina
Posts: 1,641
You can not protect yourself against every thing. Evil does exist in some people and they will use what ever is available to them to cause harm to as many as possible, airplanes, bombs, trucks, ect. all we can do is our best.
__________________
Every day Congress is in session we lose a little bit more of our Liberty.
tony pasley is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 02:00 PM   #3
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
....what actions (if any) could prevent someone with no criminal record from acquiring a weapon to use in carrying out an attack?
Why should the question be limited to those with no criminal record?

Anyone can acquire weapons.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 02:06 PM   #4
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,108
People on the terror watch list can buy guns. So no, there isn't a way to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 02:28 PM   #5
OhioGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2016
Posts: 1,089
True. Ban the weapons and terrorists will have them anyway.
OhioGuy is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 03:56 PM   #6
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 825
Terrorists around the world can easily obtain whatever weapons they want- Full auto rifles in gun-restrictive France, for example, RPGs, explosives, etc. Weapon restrictions are no obstacle. Also, the recent trend has been to drive vehicles into crowds.

Issuing a directive to take advantage of our gun laws may simply be a propaganda ploy to fire up gun control advocates here in hopes of disarming potential victims.
JN01 is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 04:38 PM   #7
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,713
If you mean how can we as a society guard against jihadis arming themselves in the US according to US law, we can't. And they have proven that without access to firearms they will use cars and trucks, bombs, and, lest we forget, hijacked planes. Intelligence is often our best weapon - I often wonder how many plans have been thwarted that we don't even know about.

If you mean how we as individuals guard against such things, only by being observant, reporting suspicious behaviors to authorities, and, as a last resort, employing arms when needed to end an incident.
TailGator is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 07:21 PM   #8
Prndll
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 123
It's all quite interesting really. All those so-called assault rifles in the picture and a desire to make everyone believe that the answer to it all is to ban guns. People seem to completely forget about 'box cutters' being used in the 911 attacks.

It does make one wonder though....how many threats to human life can be removed with just what is in that picture.
Prndll is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 09:07 PM   #9
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,328
Quote:
...what actions (if any) could prevent someone with no criminal record from acquiring a weapon to use in carrying out an attack?
The only way I know would be to lock up anyone who has the capability to carry out an attack.

Freedom means people can make their own choices. Reality means that some people will use their freedom to harm others. Those who can't accept the latter will try to attack the former in various ways.
Quote:
Clearly the tone of the article is meant to imply that the availability of guns (at all) is making this country more vulnerable to terrorists.
Right. Because when bad guys don't have access to guns, they're totally harmless...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_N...y_truck_attack Truck Attack. 8 dead, about 12 injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack Truck Attack. 86 dead, 468 injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_W...theque_bombing Bomb attack. 3 killed, 230 injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire Arson attack. 87 people killed using approximately $1 worth of gasoline.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 09:07 PM   #10
peacefulgary
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 677
You can't have total safety without losing some freedom.

A caged bird is very safe...just not free.
peacefulgary is offline  
Old December 28, 2017, 10:53 PM   #11
MandolinMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2013
Posts: 339
No set of laws can possibly prevent someone from inflicting violence upon others if they have it in their mind to do so. In this sense, morality cannot be legislated. Guns will always be able to be accessed illegally and used for criminal purposes. No new set of laws will remedy this. The liberals who argue for gun control just doesn't seem to grasp the fact that criminals don't regard the law.
MandolinMan is offline  
Old December 29, 2017, 01:17 AM   #12
Danoobie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2017
Posts: 351
Let's all take a look at where most of these whack jobs start shooting the
place up at, shall we? Let's also look at what many of them do as soon as armed response arrives.

They generally start shooting up a GUN FREE ZONE. As soon as they are faced with an armed response, they shoot themselves.

Most of these "mentally unbalanced" people are coherent enough to KNOW
exactly where a majority of people are most helpless, and what their future is to be,
as soon as anybody else with a gun shows up. So it would seem, to me, that we need
to relax the gun laws for law abiding citizens, and get rid of gun free zones. Because
most of these folks who go on rampages aren't real enthusiastic about anybody else in the area having a gun. So if they KNOW other people are armed, that, IMHO, is the best deterrent.

When somebody starts clucking about "how easy it is to get a gun", I always
respond with "Really? Then go get me one, right now." I guess it isn't THAT damn
easy, because NOBODY EVER returned with an "easy" gun, yet...
Danoobie is offline  
Old December 29, 2017, 11:36 AM   #13
johnwilliamson062
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
I think anyone interested in really looking into this issue should spend some time researching the international arms market and it's relation to the international drug market.
The idea that full shipping containers of heroin originating from radicalized regions can be brought into the US and Mexico, but guns readily available through open air markets in those same regions that smell like any industrial equipment can not, is ridiculous.
Firearms are not cost efficient tools for terror attacks. That is why they don't use them overseas in areas where REAL AKs are in every home. The alternatives are much worse.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old December 29, 2017, 11:53 AM   #14
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,676
Quote:
The only way I know would be to lock up anyone who has the capability to carry out an attack.
That'd be just about everybody....... and prisons are the safest places on earth, right?
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 29, 2017, 11:58 AM   #15
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,180
We learned “a (smart) dedicated attacker will succeed”.
Haven’t seen many exceptions.

If you look at the plots the Feds have stopped, virtually all would balance out Albert Einstein on the IQ scale.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old December 29, 2017, 05:04 PM   #16
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
The only way to prevent all crime is to remove all freedom.
I, for one, don't want that to happen. I would rather risk dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old December 30, 2017, 10:09 AM   #17
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,282
Quote:
They generally start shooting up a GUN FREE ZONE. As soon as they are faced with an armed response, they shoot themselves.
Not this mischaracterization again. First, most mass shootings are not in gun-free zones. Most public mass shooters are in gun-free zones, but a lot certainly are not. Beyond that, when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is faced with an armed response, MOST public mass shooters do not kill themselves. As per this FBI study...

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...000-2013-1.pdf

Active shooters only kill themselves about 40% of the time and some of those are AFTER doing battle with the cops.

So let's stop the self deception of myth that if such a shooter faces resistance that all of a sudden he will commit de facto suicide and peace will descend on the crime scene as all danger slips away. It doesn't work like that and never has. Some will, but some will also fight for a while before committing suicide. Some fight to the death. Some escape. Some just surrender, though rarely (if ever) immediately.

Here are just a few that didn't just commit suicide as soon as they were faced with armed resistance.

Klebold and Harris didn't stop when confronted by armed response, exchanging shots with SRO.
Whitman @ UT didn't.
Nathan Desai 2016 mass shooting in Houston, fought with cops and was killed
Dionisio Garza III 2016 mass shooting in Houston fought with cops and LTC holder who was wounded through both legs, crippled.
Tyler Courthouse Square shooter didn't just commit suicide, killed exchanged fire with law enforcement and Mark Wilson (chl holder) who was killed
Sutherland Springs - fought back against good Sam.
Pulse Night Club - exchanged shots with security guard at entrance at the start of his mass shooting
1984 San Ysidro McDonald's shooting, killed by SWAT sniper
Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, California, exchanged fire with cops
Nadal Hasan, Fort Hood, exchanged fire with military police
Christopher Harper-Mercer, at Umpqua Community College battled cops before committing suicide
Aaron Alexis - Naval Yard shooter battled security and cops, hitting multiple, and even taking the gun from one of them
2016 Dallas Police shooting, fought with and killed officers, had to be killed by robot with a bomb
Here is one you probably didn't hear of, not because of some media conspiracy, but because it wasn't public. North Texas came Sept. 10, 2017 Spencer James Hight, 32, invaded a Dallas Cowboys watch party at the home of his estranged wife and opened fire, fatally shooting eight people and injuring another. He was killed by a responding officer.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/lo...#storylink=cpy
Cedric Ford, Kansas lawnmower factory shooting, died in a battle with cops
Pedro Vargas, Hialeah, FL apartment building shooting, killed by cops
Michael Page, Sikh Temple shooting, died in battle with cops, actually ambushing one on his arrival, shooting him 15(?) times.
Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez made attacks on two military facilities, was killed in battle with cops
In 2012, Vic Stacy became a hero in the Peach House RV Park shooting by making long distance shots with his pistol and stopping a gunman who had killed three, their dogs, and was battling with a cop that had been ambushed - heralded as having stopped a mass shooting, Stacy was exchanged shots with the gunman.

So let's give up this preposterously naive notion that a mass shooter is going to just fold up and commit suicide at the first sign of armed response. This is a great way to end up injured, crippled, or killed by underestimating your opposition. Police and concealed carry people who have done battle with mass shooters have ended up injured and killed. Vanquish the thought from your mind that a mass shooter isn't going to fight back.

No doubt, a bunch of mass shooters do commit suicide. A bunch will long before cops ever arrive or before ever being faced with armed response. They often have a plan and work through it to culmination, which is their own suicide. The don't want to do jail time, but NEVER assume this will be the case.

In keeping with this thread, it should be pointed out that several of the shooters in the above incidents either had no criminal history or no criminal history that would disallow them purchase and ownership of firearms.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old December 31, 2017, 07:14 PM   #18
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 2,992
If someone is intent on mass killing, there is little that gun laws can do to prevent it. Guns are not very effective in wiping out large amounts of individuals by one person. Vegas was an anomaly. Even then, how many were killed? Double digits...

I'll say it again - a gun is ineffective in generating mass casualties by a single individual.
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old December 31, 2017, 10:52 PM   #19
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,282
Quote:
Vegas was an anomaly.
I am sure people thought Whitman's shooting in Austin was an anomaly. Luby's probably was as well. I know folks thought the 2009 Fort Hood shooting was an anomaly, then it happened again in 2014 by a soldier who killed three, wounded 14.

Only the future will tell if Vegas was an anomaly or not.

Quote:
Even then, how many were killed? Double digits...

I'll say it again - a gun is ineffective in generating mass casualties by a single individual.
Casualties are not just those that are killed. Vegas was the largest mass shooting in the US. 58 were killed. Hundreds were injured. AND, he did it from what would be considered sniper distances, hundreds of yards away, by a person with no known formal training and limited experience.

Whether or not one considers a gun effective or ineffective for inflicting mass casualties is moot. The impact on the nation was significant. The event stymied some significant legislation for us as well.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 1, 2018, 01:40 AM   #20
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,676
Quote:
Casualties are not just those that are killed. Vegas was the largest mass shooting in the US. 58 were killed. Hundreds were injured. AND, he did it from what would be considered sniper distances, hundreds of yards away, by a person with no known formal training and limited experience.
He'd have been deadlier with a heavy truck..... or an armored bulldozer ....or a bomb ..... or chlorine gas ..... it's a high density, soft target..... and those won't go away .....

Quote:
The impact on the nation was significant.
...only because it fit the news media template .... if it bleeds, it leads ....
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 1, 2018, 01:42 AM   #21
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,676
Quote:
I am sure people thought Whitman's shooting in Austin was an anomaly. Luby's probably was as well. I know folks thought the 2009 Fort Hood shooting was an anomaly, then it happened again in 2014 by a soldier who killed three, wounded 14.
Statistically, all those events were anomalies .... that's why they were "news" ....
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 1, 2018, 02:22 AM   #22
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 2,992
Let me clarify. Vegas was an anomaly in that it was a shooter shooting from 600 yards away into a crowd with a rapid fire rifle. I personally can't recall another similar mass shooting scenario. Even with this shooting-fish-in-a-barrel scenario...how many dead? Less than sixty. Again, an individual with a gun is not effective if the desire is to kill large numbers of individuals. Tractor trailers, fire, gas, weaponized drone & other WMDs are much better suited. Which brings the question - why the hell are so many antis and the media hell bent on demonizing something no more than a tool. Also, if everyone who can legally carry actually does, it pretty much nullifies the Newsweek article.
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old January 1, 2018, 02:24 AM   #23
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 2,992
Quote:
He'd have been deadlier with a heavy truck..... or an armored bulldozer ....or a bomb ..... or chlorine gas ..... it's a high density, soft target..... and those won't go away .....

Quote:
The impact on the nation was significant.
...only because it fit the news media template .... if it bleeds, it leads ....
Can I get an "Amen!" ?
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old January 1, 2018, 10:00 AM   #24
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,282
The point at which "anomalies" keep getting repeated, they aren't anomalies any more. They are repeating and morphing. You can claim that they are anomalies, but that doesn't change the fact that they keep occurring.

That other things may be more deadily isn't relevant.

Quote:
Also, if everyone who can legally carry actually does, it pretty much nullifies the Newsweek article.
Well they don't. They never have and never will. We don't even get many people who are gun owners with carry permits or in constitutional carry states that carry all the time.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 18, 2018, 05:15 PM   #25
jrothWA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2006
Posts: 2,410
First of all...

consider the source: NEWSWEEK,lump together with Time, etc.,
only value is for laying down under the puppies.

Find a real media outlet.
jrothWA is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2020 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12252 seconds with 10 queries