Meeting fire with fire

#1
#2
Robin Browne, a major with the British Army, helped design the training course
One assumes that's 'an ex-major'?? Or are we now contracting our expertise to defray the costs of the sandpit?
 
#3
Nibbler said:
Robin Browne, a major with the British Army, helped design the training course
One assumes that's 'an ex-major'?? Or are we now contracting our expertise to defray the costs of the sandpit?
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
 
#4
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.
 
#5
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.
 
#7
ishinryu said:
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.
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.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
ishinryu said:
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.
Not any more. Sitting tight on a hijacked airliner doesn't help you when it's being used as a giant kamikaze...
 
#10
jrwlynch said:
ishinryu said:
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.
Not any more. Sitting tight on a hijacked airliner doesn't help you when it's being used as a giant kamikaze...
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
 
#11
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.
 
#12
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.
 
#13
mushroom said:
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.


Ever heard of the Sullivan Act? Try owning a firearm in New York- only the police and criminals have them.
 
#14
ishinryu said:
The whole issue has to do with gun control. The only people who need guns are the military and in some cases the police.

And the farmers? Do they phone the MOD and request assistance with a fox and wait for the Warrior or Plod ARV to turn up?

Take guns away, make it harder for anger/fear/insanity/violence to find quick outlet in easy killings.

As a FAC holder, I have been very thoroughly checked out, including my medical records to ensure that I am unlikely to go wibble. The slightest hint of potential nutter, and my guns get pulled. Farmers had their shotguns confiscated during the foot & mouth debacle on the grounds of either topping themselves or going postal due to the stress of seeing their livelihoods destroyed. One hint to Mr Plod that I am unfit to hold, one conviction or caution, potentially even one arrest, an allegation of drug use or alcoholism, and it's bye bye to the armoury, at least for a while.

Hamilton (may the evil scum burn in hell) should NEVER have been granted the certificate in the first place. Even those records of the enquiry that have been released show that he was a complete hat-stand with an unhealthy interest in kids and as such Central Constabulary should have acted long before the massacre. The fact that a lot of the information won't be released for decades gives you a good hint that something went catastophically wrong. The legal shooter was used as a scapegoat because the Govt had to be seen to do something when faced with the horrible toll of Dunblane.

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

I believe that this was the only incident of it's type.

The removal of handguns from the general populace has proved to be successful in preventing these kinds of attacks in the UK.

See above.

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.

If someone's barking enough to target schoolkids, then not having access to a legally held firearm will make no difference - they will find a method.
IIRC wasn't there an attack a few years ago with a home made flamethrower? (NI I think). Then there was the machete attack on the playgroup where the teacher got badly hurt defending the sprogs against the nutter.

The big problem in the UK is illegal weapons. Ex East bloc 9mms, converted replicas etc, carried for status or 'protection'. Clamping down on legal shooters will do Jack Sh1t for this problem, as by definition criminals don't tend to obey the law - it's sort of a job description. Likewise crazed loons aren't taking into consideration the penalties involved.

We have probably the strictest gun control laws in the world (with the exception of NY). By definition those who hold legal guns are the most law abiding in society, and most who do would not want to see US style gun ownership in the UK. However attacking legal shooters will not affect the mad or the bad in any way.
 
#15
Civvy_Shot said:
ishinryu said:
The whole issue has to do with gun control. The only people who need guns are the military and in some cases the police.

And the farmers? Do they phone the MOD and request assistance with a fox and wait for the Warrior or Plod ARV to turn up?

Take guns away, make it harder for anger/fear/insanity/violence to find quick outlet in easy killings.

As a FAC holder, I have been very thoroughly checked out, including my medical records to ensure that I am unlikely to go wibble. The slightest hint of potential nutter, and my guns get pulled. Farmers had their shotguns confiscated during the foot & mouth debacle on the grounds of either topping themselves or going postal due to the stress of seeing their livelihoods destroyed. One hint to Mr Plod that I am unfit to hold, one conviction or caution, potentially even one arrest, an allegation of drug use or alcoholism, and it's bye bye to the armoury, at least for a while.

Hamilton (may the evil scum burn in hell) should NEVER have been granted the certificate in the first place. Even those records of the enquiry that have been released show that he was a complete hat-stand with an unhealthy interest in kids and as such Central Constabulary should have acted long before the massacre. The fact that a lot of the information won't be released for decades gives you a good hint that something went catastophically wrong. The legal shooter was used as a scapegoat because the Govt had to be seen to do something when faced with the horrible toll of Dunblane.

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

I believe that this was the only incident of it's type.

The removal of handguns from the general populace has proved to be successful in preventing these kinds of attacks in the UK.

See above.

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.

If someone's barking enough to target schoolkids, then not having access to a legally held firearm will make no difference - they will find a method.
IIRC wasn't there an attack a few years ago with a home made flamethrower? (NI I think). Then there was the machete attack on the playgroup where the teacher got badly hurt defending the sprogs against the nutter.

The big problem in the UK is illegal weapons. Ex East bloc 9mms, converted replicas etc, carried for status or 'protection'. Clamping down on legal shooters will do Jack Sh1t for this problem, as by definition criminals don't tend to obey the law - it's sort of a job description. Likewise crazed loons aren't taking into consideration the penalties involved.

We have probably the strictest gun control laws in the world (with the exception of NY). By definition those who hold legal guns are the most law abiding in society, and most who do would not want to see US style gun ownership in the UK. However attacking legal shooters will not affect the mad or the bad in any way.
Please fix your quotes CV... haven't a clue where your post begins.
 
#17
I just think it is illogical that the UK govt of the time went bananas and banned legal pistol ownership (I remember a lady Labour MP pointing out that her London ward had had over 100 illegal firearms incidents in that same year on which the legislation would have zero impact).

It struck me at the time that the annual rate of avoidable child RTA fatalities in UK, is a much more appalling statistic, deserving of more public attention, and higher government priority than this junk law.

At the risk of inflating BSL's book budget still further, there is an interesting book on the phenomena of mass killing (usually focussed on children), and serial killing (almost always female victims), written by a Canadian anthropologist, somewhere on my chaotic shelves.

The author argues that there is a strong cultural undercurrent to this kind of behaviour, explaining its relative infrequency in UK and - perhaps more significant - in Canada (where guns are more readily available than UK(?)), compared to the USA.

Sadly, he does not hold out much hope of weirdos like these (they are emphatically sadmen not madmen) being detected before they 'go postal'.

Hunting Humans by Elliott Leyton (ignore the 2nd review).
 
#18
Civvy_Shot said:
Sorry - PC dullard. Ishinryu's bits in bold
Most appreciative.
 
#19
My whole point is that by preventing gun ownership, you remove that danger from the general populace. It is the fact that giving the public access to firearms means that there are more weapons in the general populace. There have been cases where weaposn have been stolen from Army armouries. These are supposed to be highly secure, with alarm systems linked to police response. Imagine how easy it is to steal weapons from private armouries.

The fact that there are illicit weapons available to criminals out there is not justification for members of the public to have them. You can't use them for home protection. As stated before the only people who should have weapons are those people who need them.

The fact that people are stating that more people are killed by RTAs is not comparable. The fact is that a gun is made specifically for the purpose of killing something, a car is not.

The shooting that have happened recently have usually had to do with gang culture, albeit some of the victims have been innocent people. We need to stop this circle of violence before it leads to a situation similar to that in Sao Paulo (If anybody saw the Ross Kemp on Gangs program a couple of weeks ago).


Why has dunblane been the only incident? Because we removed weapons from the general populace. Luckily we didn't have the NRA trying to ram the mantra of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" down our throats. The problem is that guns make it a fcuk of a lot easier for people to kill lots of other people. That is why the military have them. The whole aim in war is to kill more of their soldiers than they kill of ours, therefore gaining superiority.
 
#20
ishinryu said:
Why has dunblane been the only incident? Because we removed weapons from the general populace. Luckily we didn't have the NRA trying to ram the mantra of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" down our throats. The problem is that guns make it a fcuk of a lot easier for people to kill lots of other people. That is why the military have them. The whole aim in war is to kill more of their soldiers than they kill of ours, therefore gaining superiority.
Read Leyton's book. He makes the point that in killings of this type are much more frequent in America than in any other similarly developed country - even those where guns are quite readily available, in Europe and indeed Canada. Ergo, weapon availability is NOT the key determinant; there is something more subtle at work.

As for cars not being made to kill people - you didn't see the young cnut in the red hatchback who just screamed past me, in the face of oncoming traffic, on my way home just now!!
 

Latest Threads

Top