Meeting fire with fire

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BoomShackerLacker, Oct 25, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. One assumes that's 'an ex-major'?? Or are we now contracting our expertise to defray the costs of the sandpit?
     
  2. Er maybe not.

    Browne concedes that his program of fighting back carries risk. He admits that the first student to swarm an attacker may pay with his or her life. However, he believes the risk may be worth it to save other lives.

    "He won't be able to shoot the fourth, fifth, eighth, twentieth or thirtieth student," he said
     
  3. Robin is a Major with the British Army, albeit now serving as a Territorial. He was for many years a regular officer. He is best known for turning up to exercises at Suffield in his own aircraft.

    He is also a regular reader of this site and has been known to make the occasional post.
     
  4. Why is it that in any hostage or seige situation, most security experts tell you to sit tight and let the professionals deal with it. Aggravating the situation gets more people killed.
     
  5. And your proof for this is?
     
  6. I think the point is that you are not going to be a hostage, you are going to die. We only hear about the ones that students die in, there may be others when it ended with out shots being fired. If some one enters a school with a weapon history tells us they are going to kill, so take the initiative and don’t be a lamb.
     
  7. Because Wesley Snipes says so and because if you've become part of the 'problem' then your not part of the solution.
     
  8. jrwlynch

    jrwlynch LE Book Reviewer

    Not any more. Sitting tight on a hijacked airliner doesn't help you when it's being used as a giant kamikaze...
     
  9. Trying to take out the hijackers didn't improve things for the flyers - saved a few on the ground though (with the aircraft that had the hijackers attacked that is).

    My personal feelings are that if You have the training and the balls, go for it - if You haven't got the weight and the aggression then You will do better by trying to run away - a gunman wouldn't be able to take out as many
     
  10. This expert is recommending that CHILDREN try to rush an intruder, put themselves in the line of fire and very possibly get themselves killed. This takes 1) co-ordination and 2) bravery. You could expect such actions from soldiers who are trained in aggressive responses to threats, but children in a classroom will have the mindset of adults being in a position of authority. This will make them hesitate and will not act without concern for their well-being. We are trained to keep our heads under fire, and keep going, but children do not have that training.

    If a gun-man gets into a school, the best idea is to try to evacuate those you can get out. If the gun toting mad man wants to kill people he will not stop because he is being rushed by children. This will mean more people get killed.

    This is just a "security expert" jumping on the bandwagon after the Amish Killing in the US. You have to remember that the pupils were girls, the oldest one was 13. Roberts sent the boys out of the class. This probably gave the impression that a hostage situation was occuring not preparations for massacre. Having the pupils rush Charles Roberts would have probably resulted in more than the 5 unfortunate deaths.

    The whole issue has to do with gun control. The only people who need guns are the military and in some cases the police. Take guns away, make it harder for anger/fear/insanity/violence to find quick outlet in easy killings.

    The last time something like this happened in the UK was Dunblane in 1996. Have a look at the attached time line for how often these school shootings have occured in the US since them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4371403.stm

    The removal of handguns from the general populace has proved to be successful in preventing these kinds of attacks in the UK. Others will argue that there are still lots of illicit weapons available, but the penalties for owning those weapons are such that they prevent your average crazy loon from easily getting their hands on them. Others will say that these loons will then use knives. Knives are easier to control when weilded by people. Probably a better use of training resources would be to teach people self-defence.
     
  11. Ishy - there is no evidence that the removal of legally held weapons has had any effect on school shootings in the UK as there has only been one. Moreover, as the details of the perpetrators firearms certificate are to be a state secret for 100 years there is no way of knowing whether or not he used legal weapons. There have been many suggestions that the pistols he used were illegal.

    Given the rise in gun crime since the banning of privately held weapons I would suggest the only result of that legislation was to deny responsible adults the pleasure of a sport they had pursued for many years.

    Having said that the American rules on gun ownership are incredibably lax, and I certainly wouldn't want them in this country.
     


  12. Ever heard of the Sullivan Act? Try owning a firearm in New York- only the police and criminals have them.
     
  13.  
  14. Please fix your quotes CV... haven't a clue where your post begins.