SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    “Run Away” And “Hide” If ISIS Attacks London…
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD

Closed Topic Closed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
“Run Away” And “Hide” If ISIS Attacks London… Login/Join 
Member
Picture of 3/4Flap
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tacfoley:
quote:
Originally posted by Tusk:It can, if you have the will to try...

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...-crisis-do-something


Uh, right, Sir.

Let's see some context here, OK?

Quote - With a bloodshot eye, a cut on his head and his arm in a sling after surgery to reattach his thumb, Spencer Stone, a 6ft 2in off-duty airman and martial arts fan, looked fatigued but relieved to be alive as he slowly came to terms with his new surprise status of American hero. End quote.

What percentage of YOUR population is a husky 6ft 2in male serving-military and martial arts exponent? Who just happens to the on the scene right there when the SHTF?

Just interested to know, that's all.

tac


Just ignore it, Tac.

But please answer my question.

Do you know if possession and wearing of body armor is legal or illegal in the UK?

I'm really curious about that as I believe this could be something that crops up here at some point. I think {?} there might be some local laws in the USA governing it already?


**********************
"For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"; United States Supreme Court Ruling, Murphy v. Ramsey 1885.
The hardest trail leads to the highest peak.
"A liberal is a person whose immediate interests are not at stake."
 
Posts: 4610 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tacfoley:
quote:
Originally posted by Tusk:It can, if you have the will to try...

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...-crisis-do-something


Uh, right, Sir.

Let's see some context here, OK?

Quote - With a bloodshot eye, a cut on his head and his arm in a sling after surgery to reattach his thumb, Spencer Stone, a 6ft 2in off-duty airman and martial arts fan, looked fatigued but relieved to be alive as he slowly came to terms with his new surprise status of American hero. End quote.

What percentage of YOUR population is a husky 6ft 2in male serving-military and martial arts exponent? Who just happens to the on the scene right there when the SHTF?

Just interested to know, that's all.

tac


You miss the point entirely. Being 6’2” doesn’t make you bullet proof any more than knowing karate does. It’s about three people willing to stand up and take the risk. They knew they might all be killed, but they did it anyway. Not because one of them was 6’2” but because the alternative was unthinkable. There is no guarantee of success but resistance isn’t futile and no country on earth should ever tell its people to run away and hide.

You don’t need to respond, I won’t be commenting anymore.
 
Posts: 140 | Location: Bucks County, PA | Registered: December 24, 2002Report This Post
3° that never cooled
Picture of rock185
posted Hide Post
Many Government and corporate entities here in the US are teaching Run,Hide,Fight. The reality is that most Americans are not trained for mortal combat, are not armed,and I have no doubt most would not wish to be either trained or armed. So, I suspect most folks here are in about the same boat as our cousins in the UK should terrorists attack. I think Run, Hide, Fight is prudent for the vast majority of our citizens. I was in the military and spent most of my adult life in LE and fully realize how weak Run, Hide, Fight sounds to many on gun enthusiast forums. But,IMHO,"Run away and hide" is not the worst advice for the vast majority of our, or UK's, citizens caught in one of these horrific situations.

BTW, I was once assigned to show a visiting UK police officer around our facility. In chatting with him, he said he had never fired a gun and would not want to be armed. He further related that his concern was that if armed, a criminal might take his gun away and hurt him with it. I do not fault him for his attitude. The UK is a different culture with a different mindset. I would not be surprised if he thought those of us in US LE were "Cowboys" with all our weapons and gearWink


COTEP #640, NRA Life
 
Posts: 901 | Location: Out West | Registered: August 18, 2003Report This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by rock185:
"Run away and hide" is not the worst advice for the vast majority of our, or UK's, citizens caught in one of these horrific situations.


I agree completely because what’s the alternative? “Don’t run; stay where the attack is occurring”? “Don’t hide; let the attackers know where you are”? “Don’t fight as a last resort; surrender and hope they don’t kill you”?

That was actually the advice some high police officials used to give (and perhaps still do give) in this country about reacting to violent crimes: “Cooperate, don’t resist, and you’ll be fine.”

Would the advice to UK citizens be better if it included the “fight” part? I believe so, but the run and hide parts are still valid and make much more sense in most situations for most people.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 36355 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Report This Post
Member
Picture of 3/4Flap
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
quote:
Originally posted by rock185:
"Run away and hide" is not the worst advice for the vast majority of our, or UK's, citizens caught in one of these horrific situations.


I agree completely because what’s the alternative? “Don’t run; stay where the attack is occurring”? “Don’t hide; let the attackers know where you are”? “Don’t fight as a last resort; surrender and hope they don’t kill you”?

That was actually the advice some high police officials used to give (and perhaps still do give) in this country about reacting to violent crimes: “Cooperate, don’t resist, and you’ll be fine.”

Would the advice to UK citizens be better if it included the “fight” part? I believe so, but the run and hide parts are still valid and make much more sense in most situations for most people.


I always taught my kids the following about active shooters in school. They all knew what gunfire sounds like since they heard and made a lot of it around the ranch here.

1} They were to ignore anything the teachers told them to do and jump out the classroom window and run like hell until they couldn't run any further. I told them that if they were in a classroom that had sealed windows they were to take a chair and smash the windows, throw their clothes over the cut glass and climb out and run.

2} If cornered they were to throw books or anything else hard and dangerous at hand at the shooter and scream loudly and attack him and get him to the ground and using fists or anything else dangerous grab the gun, twist off his fingers, punch/kick him in the groin and hit him until he stopped moving or twitching. We talked about using fire extinguishers to confuse him and then use the thing to cave his head in.

I do believe my daughters and son would have done as told. And sure, maybe died trying. But at least trying.

So yeah, running and fleeing DEFINITELY has its place.


**********************
"For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"; United States Supreme Court Ruling, Murphy v. Ramsey 1885.
The hardest trail leads to the highest peak.
"A liberal is a person whose immediate interests are not at stake."
 
Posts: 4610 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Report This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
They all knew what gunfire sounds like since they heard and made a lot of it around the ranch here.


That’s definitely important. In some incidents, including Sandy Hook IIRC, people heard distant shooting but didn’t identify them as gunshots because they weren’t familiar with the sound. As part of some of my training I include firing blanks to give people an idea what they sound like in distant parts of a large building. It also demonstrates to officers how difficult it is to locate the source of shots and to give them practice in finding a shooter by sound.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 36355 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Report This Post
half-genius,
half-wit
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 3/4Flap: Do you know if possession and wearing of body armor is legal or illegal in the UK?

I'm really curious about that as I believe this could be something that crops up here at some point. I think {?} there might be some local laws in the USA governing it already?


Mornin', men [and Brecaidra].

Yes. Anybody in the UK can buy TWO types of body armour/armor.

1. Fake - for Airsoft and reenactment and personal reasons, and

2. Real - for Airsoft and reenactment and personal reasons.

The difference is in the amount it costs.

EDIT - forgot to mention - all police wear stabproof stuff, all SWAT wear the latest avialable stuff, better than the current military gear, all MiT staff [money in transit], wear it, but this is all part of the need for OTJ safety. I'm sure there are others, like bodyguards, diplomatic protection et al.

tac

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tacfoley,
 
Posts: 8197 | Location: UK, OR, ONT | Registered: July 10, 2003Report This Post
half-genius,
half-wit
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tusk:
You don’t need to respond, I won’t be commenting anymore.


Excellent news.

tac

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tacfoley,
 
Posts: 8197 | Location: UK, OR, ONT | Registered: July 10, 2003Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Tacfoley,

Have you read Guns and Violence, The English Experience? I thought it was covered the subject rather well. The origin of the Black Laws was interesting.
 
Posts: 1593 | Location: El Paso, Texas | Registered: January 05, 2009Report This Post
half-genius,
half-wit
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BillF:
Tacfoley,

Have you read Guns and Violence, The English Experience? I thought it was covered the subject rather well. The origin of the Black Laws was interesting.


Nossir, I have not. Thanks for advising me of its existence. In this case, amazon is my friend.

While we are discussing UK gun crime, can I just point out the 'gun-crime' figures in my county in the year 2015?

Quote - 'A Freedom of Information request has revealed Cambridgeshire Constabulary arrested seven boys for suspected firearm offences in 2015.

This was compared with eight in 2014 and two in 2013. Two 17-year-old boys were charged with possession of an intimation firearm in a public place in 2015, while a 15-year-old was charged with firing an air weapon behind premises in 2014.'

Hardly Detroit, is it?

tac
 
Posts: 8197 | Location: UK, OR, ONT | Registered: July 10, 2003Report This Post
Member
Picture of 3/4Flap
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tacfoley:
quote:
Originally posted by BillF:
Tacfoley,

Have you read Guns and Violence, The English Experience? I thought it was covered the subject rather well. The origin of the Black Laws was interesting.


Nossir, I have not. Thanks for advising me of its existence. In this case, amazon is my friend.

While we are discussing UK gun crime, can I just point out the 'gun-crime' figures in my county in the year 2015?

Quote - 'A Freedom of Information request has revealed Cambridgeshire Constabulary arrested seven boys for suspected firearm offences in 2015.

This was compared with eight in 2014 and two in 2013. Two 17-year-old boys were charged with possession of an intimation firearm in a public place in 2015, while a 15-year-old was charged with firing an air weapon behind premises in 2014.'

Hardly Detroit, is it?

tac


tac, I don't know the book either, but if you decide to read it, maybe pop in here and give us your impressions.

Sounds interesting.

I have my own opinions {hopefully influenced and informed by history} pertaining to gun violence, the relationship of gun ownership to violence and the existence and desirability of gun-free cultures.

At risk of sounding flippant, if yours works then all the power to you.

The big advantage the British and Europeans have had IMO vis a vis the minimal gun crime violence is the homogeneity of their societies. Given the direction they are headed, I don't think that social construct will last indefinitely and as culture and religious mixing takes place, so will violence. Assuming they are happy about it now, in a hundred years from now, I have my doubts that the average Briton or Euro will be very happy if they are still not permitted arms to defend themselves. At that point, maybe they might tend to see our situation {if they don't already} in a somewhat different light.


**********************
"For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"; United States Supreme Court Ruling, Murphy v. Ramsey 1885.
The hardest trail leads to the highest peak.
"A liberal is a person whose immediate interests are not at stake."
 
Posts: 4610 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tacfoley:
quote:
Originally posted by BillF:
Tacfoley,

Have you read Guns and Violence, The English Experience? I thought it was covered the subject rather well. The origin of the Black Laws was interesting.


Nossir, I have not. Thanks for advising me of its existence. In this case, amazon is my friend.

While we are discussing UK gun crime, can I just point out the 'gun-crime' figures in my county in the year 2015?

Quote - 'A Freedom of Information request has revealed Cambridgeshire Constabulary arrested seven boys for suspected firearm offences in 2015.

This was compared with eight in 2014 and two in 2013. Two 17-year-old boys were charged with possession of an intimation firearm in a public place in 2015, while a 15-year-old was charged with firing an air weapon behind premises in 2014.'

Hardly Detroit, is it?

tac


Amazon is great. The book starts in Middle Ages and covers laws and crime to the present, not just firearms. I did not know that at one time there were laws to keep the Catholics disarmed.
 
Posts: 1593 | Location: El Paso, Texas | Registered: January 05, 2009Report This Post
half-genius,
half-wit
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BillF:
quote:
Originally posted by tacfoley:
quote:
Originally posted by BillF:
Tacfoley,

Have you read Guns and Violence, The English Experience? I thought it was covered the subject rather well. The origin of the Black Laws was interesting.


Nossir, I have not. Thanks for advising me of its existence. In this case, amazon is my friend.

While we are discussing UK gun crime, can I just point out the 'gun-crime' figures in my county in the year 2015?

Quote - 'A Freedom of Information request has revealed Cambridgeshire Constabulary arrested seven boys for suspected firearm offences in 2015.

This was compared with eight in 2014 and two in 2013. Two 17-year-old boys were charged with possession of an intimation firearm in a public place in 2015, while a 15-year-old was charged with firing an air weapon behind premises in 2014.'

Hardly Detroit, is it?

tac


Amazon is great. The book starts in Middle Ages and covers laws and crime to the present, not just firearms. I did not know that at one time there were laws to keep the Catholics disarmed.


Indeed there were. The main law is contained within the called the 1689 Bill of Rights. Eek

The Bill of Rights actually notes that Protestants shall be able to own and/or bear arms in their own defense.

The Catholics had - apart from fomenting treasonous activities as far back as the middle of the reign of Elizabeth the First, attempting to assassinate her and, in a huff setting the might of the Spanish Armada on England on the hope of invading and converting the country back to popery - tried unsuccessfully to blow up parliament, and the king and all his advisors in 1605. There had been numerous other Catholic-led plots since then, as well.

tac
 
Posts: 8197 | Location: UK, OR, ONT | Registered: July 10, 2003Report This Post
Member
Picture of 3/4Flap
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tacfoley:
The Catholics had - apart from fomenting treasonous activities as far back as the middle of the reign of Elizabeth the First, attempting to assassinate her and, in a huff setting the might of the Spanish Armada on England on the hope of invading and converting the country back to popery - tried unsuccessfully to blow up parliament, and the king and all his advisors in 1605. There had been numerous other Catholic-led plots since then, as well.

tac


As a Catholic, I find that to be quite a humorous and sweeping abbreviation of history, and not all of it untrue!

LOL.


**********************
"For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"; United States Supreme Court Ruling, Murphy v. Ramsey 1885.
The hardest trail leads to the highest peak.
"A liberal is a person whose immediate interests are not at stake."
 
Posts: 4610 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Report This Post
half-genius,
half-wit
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
quote:
Originally posted by tacfoley:
The Catholics had - apart from fomenting treasonous activities as far back as the middle of the reign of Elizabeth the First, attempting to assassinate her and, in a huff setting the might of the Spanish Armada on England on the hope of invading and converting the country back to popery - tried unsuccessfully to blow up parliament, and the king and all his advisors in 1605. There had been numerous other Catholic-led plots since then, as well.

tac


As a Catholic, I find that to be quite a humorous and sweeping abbreviation of history, and not all of it untrue!

LOL.


Abbreviated, certainly, but none of it is untrue. Check it out.

http://www.moyak.com/papers/popish-plot-england.html

To begin the investigation of the events leading up to the outburst of anti-Catholicism during the Popish Plot, it is necessary to understand the long term anti-Catholic tradition in England, which began with the English Reformation. In 1533, Henry VIII's Parliament passed a law that repudiated any papal jurisdiction over the English Church and declared the king to be its sole head. The Reformation continued under Edward VI (1547-53), but under Mary I (1553-58), England reverted back to Catholicism. She is known by the epithet, "Bloody Mary" because of her cruel persecutions in which about 300 Protestants were burned at the stake for refusing to renounce their religious beliefs. The memories of these persecutions engendered a deep hostility to Catholicism in England. On Elizabeth I's ascension to the throne in 1558, Protestantism was permanently re-established in England. Elizabeth's reputation as the Protestant savior assured her a prominent position in the English anti-Catholic tradition. In the later Elizabethan and early Stuart period, the best known examples of Catholic threats are the Catholic assassination plots against Elizabeth I in the 1570's and 1580's, the 1588 attempted invasion of England by the Spanish Armada and the 1605 Gunpowder Plot, in which a small group of Catholics conspired to blow up the king and members of Parliament. In Europe, during this time period, there was the Council of Blood (1567-73) instituted in Holland by the Duke of Alba and also the 1572 Saint Bartholmew's Day Massacre of French Protestants. To the English, these historical events provided graphic proof of the cruelty and intolerance of Catholics in power and served as a reminder of what would happen if Catholicism was ever restored in England

It got to the point where the English, severely pissed with James 2nd, invited William of Orange over from The Netherlands [a VERY staunch Protestant] to take the throne off him. The 1690 Battle of the Boyne settled THAT argument until the present day...

tac
 
Posts: 8197 | Location: UK, OR, ONT | Registered: July 10, 2003Report This Post
Member
Picture of 3/4Flap
posted Hide Post
Actually, I wasn't denying the gist of your history, as I am very well acquainted with it.

Using terms like "the English" implies that all the "Catholics" you reference weren't. And the term "treasonous" of course, as I think you know, is defined either in revision from today's perspective or by whoever happens to hold power, which during the English Reformation and for a long time after, went this way and that. Let's just say it took a while to give that word any meaning at all.

By the way, Henry's rule is by all accounts a morbid and bloodthirsty affair and if he lived today he's rank down there with the Mugabe's and Mobutu's of the world.

But then, since he was at one time a Defender of the Faith {Catholic} and the murderer of innumerable Catholics in England after he formed his new church on the bedrock foundation of murder, divorce and theft of Catholics and Church property I guess he indicts both sides of the argument.

I am actually a convert to the Catholic faith by the way. I hold history and a theology degree from a Methodist seminary. My brother is an Anglican priest as well. So my background isn't Catholic. New scholarship of Henry's {and subsequent post-Reformation reigns of the Protestant monarchs} do not support the position that they were just while their Catholic forerunners were the opposite. In fact, "English" resistance to the Reformation makes that plain. Took a long time to establish "Protestant" England. Indeed, there were many non-Anglican Protestants to be hanged and driven out! Let's not forget our Puritan forefathers here in America! They didn't leave England because things were so comfy for them there, that's for sure!

To be frank, I am a doctrine guy, and it becomes pretty hard to call many of the secular leaders of nations, Catholic or Protestant, Christians at times. It was tough to see them as such when I was a Protestant, and tough to see them as such now that I'm a Catholic!

Cheers!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 3/4Flap,


**********************
"For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"; United States Supreme Court Ruling, Murphy v. Ramsey 1885.
The hardest trail leads to the highest peak.
"A liberal is a person whose immediate interests are not at stake."
 
Posts: 4610 | Location: Idaho, USA | Registered: May 20, 2005Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  

Closed Topic Closed

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    “Run Away” And “Hide” If ISIS Attacks London…

© SIGforum 2017