Anti-Terrorist Tactics from England 1909

[Empty Hands]

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]

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.



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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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’t is comes from a friend of mine that has been an LEO for years. “I am not against guns; I am against drunks and idiots with guns.”

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

 

[Deaf Smith]

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]

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]

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.

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'.

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.