Our Biggest Immediate Terrorist Threat

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

Magick,

You are not “being allowed” to express something because it presumes you need permission to do so.

I don’t ask to protect myself, my family, or my property, because I do not require permission. The nature of my well being does not rest in the hands of someone else.

How exactly does this conversation go with you, “hey, do you mind if I don’t let you kill or harm me today” ?

It’s very simple, I will not let anyone try to take me off the map. Should they try, there will be some furniture movin’, know what I mean ?

162

Protection and self-preservation is not so-much of a man-given right. It’s biological. It’s instinctive. It’s a species trait.

A gun is simply a tool.

164

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Protection and self-preservation is not so-much of a man-given right. It’s biological. It’s instinctive. It’s a species trait.

A gun is simply a tool. [/quote]

I hope I’m understanding you right, if not, correct me.

Shouldn’t my biological right to protection and self-preservation include the ability to use the tools necessary to accomplish it? Especially when those same tools can and would be used against me?

165

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Protection and self-preservation is not so-much of a man-given right. It’s biological. It’s instinctive. It’s a species trait.

A gun is simply a tool. [/quote]

I hope I’m understanding you right, if not, correct me.

Shouldn’t my biological right to protection and self-preservation include the ability to use the tools necessary to accomplish it? Especially when those same tools can and would be used against me?

[/quote]

You connected the dots perfectly.

166

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Hey I’ve got a novel idea! How about stop importing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Muslims into your country? How about that?[/quote]

Yes, because all terrorist are of the religious variety and the vast majority of mass shootings in the United States have been perpetrated by Muslims.[/quote]

Let’s cut the bullshit okay?

“…there have been at least 60 Islamist-inspired terrorist plots against the homeland since 9/11, illustrating the continued threat of terrorism against the United States. Fifty-three of these plots were thwarted long before the public was ever in danger, due in large part to the concerted efforts of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence.”

I know they’re not “real” Muslims and that Islam is a religion of peace but someone forget to tell them that.[/quote]

Most foiled Islamic terrorism plots in the US are invented by US law enforcement. That is why the US intelligence community is successful in stopping them - they invent them. And by that I mean they go online, offer up plot ideas and weapons, convince people to join in, and then find the people they have convinced and arrest them.

Bit like sending an undercover police officer into a school to encourage people to rob their local shops, and then once people have been persuaded its a good idea and go to rob the shops, arresting them for plotting and attempting to rob shops.

167

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Hey I’ve got a novel idea! How about stop importing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Muslims into your country? How about that?[/quote]

Yes, because all terrorist are of the religious variety and the vast majority of mass shootings in the United States have been perpetrated by Muslims.[/quote]

Let’s cut the bullshit okay?

“…there have been at least 60 Islamist-inspired terrorist plots against the homeland since 9/11, illustrating the continued threat of terrorism against the United States. Fifty-three of these plots were thwarted long before the public was ever in danger, due in large part to the concerted efforts of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence.”

I know they’re not “real” Muslims and that Islam is a religion of peace but someone forget to tell them that.[/quote]

Most foiled Islamic terrorism plots in the US are invented by US law enforcement. That is why the US intelligence community is successful in stopping them - they invent them. And by that I mean they go online, offer up plot ideas and weapons, convince people to join in, and then find the people they have convinced and arrest them.

Bit like sending an undercover police officer into a school to encourage people to rob their local shops, and then once people have been persuaded its a good idea and go to rob the shops, arresting them for plotting and attempting to rob shops. [/quote]

Please show the evidence of entrapment in relation to any of those sixty foiled plots detailed in the link. Let’s examine a specific case of entrapment shall we?

168

I’m Canadian so the armed citizenry (as far as right to bear is concerned at least) question is moot for me, but I have a few thoughts on this.

While I definitely would prefer to be able to shoot back at the bad guys than not, I have some real doubts as to how effective any haphazard group of people with indeterminate levels of training, no centralized leadership/organization or team tactics, sporadically armed with handguns would be at mounting resistance against a motivated group of organized riflemen. All the more so if they didn’t know they were in a gunfight until the shooting started.

As I recall, statistically a single active shooter will kill one person per minute. So if you began with the premise of, say, 5 coordinated fire teams of 4 men, well, you can do the math. The shock and awe factor alone would be inconceivable to most of us here. Again, this is not intended as an argument against being armed, just a sober assessment of how “armed” a CCW and a handgun makes you.

I expect most here are familiar with Jeff cooper’s excellent quote: “Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician”. Beans, I am a big fan of intelligent dry training from the holster for any gun owner. However, remember that trained shooters (if they don’t freeze) generally perform at no better than about 30% of their range accuracy an actual gunfight. If they have mastered an 8 inch group with 15 shoots at 45 feet, they will perform much better than someone who goes out a plinks from time to time, but they will almost certainly not reproduce that level of accuracy when it counts.

To me, for citizens to be an effective countermeasure there would need to be better, more widespread training (including advanced first aid), and some kind of SOP where team tactics are concerned that CCW holders formerly unknown to each other could default to in crisis. This is where I think countries with universal military service have a definite edge.

169

[quote]batman730 wrote:
I’m Canadian so the armed citizenry (as far as right to bear is concerned at least) question is moot for me, but I have a few thoughts on this.

While I definitely would prefer to be able to shoot back at the bad guys than not, I have some real doubts as to how effective any haphazard group of people with indeterminate levels of training, no centralized leadership/organization or team tactics, sporadically armed with handguns would be at mounting resistance against a motivated group of organized riflemen. All the more so if they didn’t know they were in a gunfight until the shooting started.

As I recall, statistically a single active shooter will kill one person per minute. So if you began with the premise of, say, 5 coordinated fire teams of 4 men, well, you can do the math. The shock and awe factor alone would be inconceivable to most of us here. Again, this is not intended as an argument against being armed, just a sober assessment of how “armed” a CCW and a handgun makes you.

I expect most here are familiar with Jeff cooper’s excellent quote: “Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician”. Beans, I am a big fan of intelligent dry training from the holster for any gun owner. However, remember that trained shooters (if they don’t freeze) generally perform at no better than about 30% of their range accuracy an actual gunfight. If they have mastered an 8 inch group with 15 shoots at 45 feet, they will perform much better than someone who goes out a plinks from time to time, but they will almost certainly not reproduce that level of accuracy when it counts.

To me, for citizens to be an effective countermeasure there would need to be better, more widespread training (including advanced first aid), and some kind of SOP where team tactics are concerned that CCW holders formerly unknown to each other could default to in crisis. This is where I think countries with universal military service have a definite edge.
[/quote]

Being a lousy musician is not known for getting someone killed.

An aggressor with a gun will automatically take pause with initiating action if he knows his targets also have guns.

Having a gun gives you a fighting chance in the moment.

170

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
I’m Canadian so the armed citizenry (as far as right to bear is concerned at least) question is moot for me, but I have a few thoughts on this.

While I definitely would prefer to be able to shoot back at the bad guys than not, I have some real doubts as to how effective any haphazard group of people with indeterminate levels of training, no centralized leadership/organization or team tactics, sporadically armed with handguns would be at mounting resistance against a motivated group of organized riflemen. All the more so if they didn’t know they were in a gunfight until the shooting started.

As I recall, statistically a single active shooter will kill one person per minute. So if you began with the premise of, say, 5 coordinated fire teams of 4 men, well, you can do the math. The shock and awe factor alone would be inconceivable to most of us here. Again, this is not intended as an argument against being armed, just a sober assessment of how “armed” a CCW and a handgun makes you.

I expect most here are familiar with Jeff cooper’s excellent quote: “Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician”. Beans, I am a big fan of intelligent dry training from the holster for any gun owner. However, remember that trained shooters (if they don’t freeze) generally perform at no better than about 30% of their range accuracy an actual gunfight. If they have mastered an 8 inch group with 15 shoots at 45 feet, they will perform much better than someone who goes out a plinks from time to time, but they will almost certainly not reproduce that level of accuracy when it counts.

To me, for citizens to be an effective countermeasure there would need to be better, more widespread training (including advanced first aid), and some kind of SOP where team tactics are concerned that CCW holders formerly unknown to each other could default to in crisis. This is where I think countries with universal military service have a definite edge.
[/quote]

Being a lousy musician is not known for getting someone killed.

An aggressor with a gun will automatically take pause with initiating action if he knows his targets also have guns.

Having a gun gives you a fighting chance in the moment.[/quote]

I don’t disagree and said as much.

Since this is a hypothetical, I am suggesting that, hypothetically, if the “targets” had a higher level of effective and somewhat consistent training as well as weapons, they would become much harder targets than if they had weapons alone. Do you disagree?

If a private gun owner sees himself as a line of defence against such a scenario, I am suggesting that it is in his best interest and in that of those under his protection that he invest periodically in some kind of scenario based, force on force training as well as engaging in ongoing practice on his own. I’m not judging anyone who doesn’t (I don’t), I’m just saying it’d be wise if they did.

I am not suggesting that such training be mandated, but that it be made more affordable, available and that more people take advantage of it. If, hypothetically, armed citizens are to be seen as the countermeasure in this scenario, I see this as a more desirable solution than increasing the number people carrying firearms but not increasing the median level of training. Increasing both would probably be more desirable still.

172

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
I’m Canadian so the armed citizenry (as far as right to bear is concerned at least) question is moot for me, but I have a few thoughts on this.

While I definitely would prefer to be able to shoot back at the bad guys than not, I have some real doubts as to how effective any haphazard group of people with indeterminate levels of training, no centralized leadership/organization or team tactics, sporadically armed with handguns would be at mounting resistance against a motivated group of organized riflemen. All the more so if they didn’t know they were in a gunfight until the shooting started.

As I recall, statistically a single active shooter will kill one person per minute. So if you began with the premise of, say, 5 coordinated fire teams of 4 men, well, you can do the math. The shock and awe factor alone would be inconceivable to most of us here. Again, this is not intended as an argument against being armed, just a sober assessment of how “armed” a CCW and a handgun makes you.

I expect most here are familiar with Jeff cooper’s excellent quote: “Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician”. Beans, I am a big fan of intelligent dry training from the holster for any gun owner. However, remember that trained shooters (if they don’t freeze) generally perform at no better than about 30% of their range accuracy an actual gunfight. If they have mastered an 8 inch group with 15 shoots at 45 feet, they will perform much better than someone who goes out a plinks from time to time, but they will almost certainly not reproduce that level of accuracy when it counts.

To me, for citizens to be an effective countermeasure there would need to be better, more widespread training (including advanced first aid), and some kind of SOP where team tactics are concerned that CCW holders formerly unknown to each other could default to in crisis. This is where I think countries with universal military service have a definite edge.
[/quote]

Being a lousy musician is not known for getting someone killed.

An aggressor with a gun will automatically take pause with initiating action if he knows his targets also have guns.

Having a gun gives you a fighting chance in the moment.[/quote]

I don’t disagree and said as much.

Since this is a hypothetical, I am suggesting that, hypothetically, if the “targets” had a higher level of effective and somewhat consistent training as well as weapons, they would become much harder targets than if they had weapons alone. Do you disagree?

If a private gun owner sees himself as a line of defence against such a scenario, I am suggesting that it is in his best interest and in that of those under his protection that he invest periodically in some kind of scenario based, force on force training as well as engaging in ongoing practice on his own. I’m not judging anyone who doesn’t (I don’t), I’m just saying it’d be wise if they did.

I am not suggesting that such training be mandated, but that it be made more affordable, available and that more people take advantage of it. If, hypothetically, armed citizens are to be seen as the countermeasure in this scenario, I see this as a more desirable solution than increasing the number people carrying firearms but not increasing the median level of training. Increasing both would probably be more desirable still.[/quote]

Good post but I will add:

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

Robert A. Heinlein

[/quote]

This is a sentiment I’ve heard echoed by my dad for as long as I can remember.

That said, if we are talking about armed citizens responding to “a large scale small arms attack on a community”, I’d have to say that we’ve moved beyond a breakdown in basic civility ;).

As an aside, I would think it might be particularly unpleasant to get into a gunfight with a group of people with a “suicide bomber” mentality. If they are not emotionally invested in surviving the engagement but are resolved to die while inflicting as many casualties as possible on a civilian population before they are taken out, it seems they’d have a definite edge. Not a pleasant thought.

174

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

…As an aside, I would think it might be particularly unpleasant to get into a gunfight with a group of people with a “suicide bomber” mentality. If they are not emotionally invested in surviving the engagement but are resolved to die while inflicting as many casualties as possible on a civilian population before they are taken out, it seems they’d have a definite edge. Not a pleasant thought.[/quote]

I agree but we do not need more sheep than we already have in this society. We need more shepherds even if they’re not superb skilled ones.[/quote]

I tend to agree and I strive to cultivate that mindset in small ways each and every day. However I prefer the term “sheepdog” to shepherd. I don’t mean to nitpick, but the shepherd is above the flock, he cares for them but is also the arbiter of their fate.

The sheepdog isn’t, he serves. Push comes to shove, he places the safety of the flock ahead of his own.

The distinction is important, to me at least.

Edited

177

[quote]batman730 wrote:
I expect most here are familiar with Jeff cooper’s excellent quote: “Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician”. Beans, I am a big fan of intelligent dry training from the holster for any gun owner. However, remember that trained shooters (if they don’t freeze) generally perform at no better than about 30% of their range accuracy an actual gunfight. If they have mastered an 8 inch group with 15 shoots at 45 feet, they will perform much better than someone who goes out a plinks from time to time, but they will almost certainly not reproduce that level of accuracy when it counts.

[/quote]

Not everyone returning fire needs to be dead on balls accurate.

Just the act of returning fire changes the dynamic into surviving’s favor.

178

[quote]kineticj wrote:
Anyone remember the DC sniper? As I recall, that was one adult male and a teenage boy, neither with much in the way of training or expertise. They essentially shut down DC and part of Virginia, for at least a week. Two men.

[/quote]

Yes, I remember. He was active around where I lived and went to high school. But he was well trained and had a long military career, including honors as an expert rifleman. I don’t remember how involved the kid was or if he was ever the triggerman. Everything was elaborately and meticulously planned; the guy was evil but not a dummy or amateur.

The DC metro area was on high alert, but wasn’t shut down. The biggest changes from my POV was you couldn’t fuck around outside during school and we had to practice football inside the basketball gym. I’m not minimizing their actions, just keeping things in perspective.

179

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
I’m Canadian so the armed citizenry (as far as right to bear is concerned at least) question is moot for me, but I have a few thoughts on this.

While I definitely would prefer to be able to shoot back at the bad guys than not, I have some real doubts as to how effective any haphazard group of people with indeterminate levels of training, no centralized leadership/organization or team tactics, sporadically armed with handguns would be at mounting resistance against a motivated group of organized riflemen. All the more so if they didn’t know they were in a gunfight until the shooting started.

As I recall, statistically a single active shooter will kill one person per minute. So if you began with the premise of, say, 5 coordinated fire teams of 4 men, well, you can do the math. The shock and awe factor alone would be inconceivable to most of us here. Again, this is not intended as an argument against being armed, just a sober assessment of how “armed” a CCW and a handgun makes you.

I expect most here are familiar with Jeff cooper’s excellent quote: “Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician”. Beans, I am a big fan of intelligent dry training from the holster for any gun owner. However, remember that trained shooters (if they don’t freeze) generally perform at no better than about 30% of their range accuracy an actual gunfight. If they have mastered an 8 inch group with 15 shoots at 45 feet, they will perform much better than someone who goes out a plinks from time to time, but they will almost certainly not reproduce that level of accuracy when it counts.

To me, for citizens to be an effective countermeasure there would need to be better, more widespread training (including advanced first aid), and some kind of SOP where team tactics are concerned that CCW holders formerly unknown to each other could default to in crisis. This is where I think countries with universal military service have a definite edge.
[/quote]

Being a lousy musician is not known for getting someone killed.

An aggressor with a gun will automatically take pause with initiating action if he knows his targets also have guns.

Having a gun gives you a fighting chance in the moment.[/quote]

I don’t disagree and said as much.

Since this is a hypothetical, I am suggesting that, hypothetically, if the “targets” had a higher level of effective and somewhat consistent training as well as weapons, they would become much harder targets than if they had weapons alone. Do you disagree?

If a private gun owner sees himself as a line of defence against such a scenario, I am suggesting that it is in his best interest and in that of those under his protection that he invest periodically in some kind of scenario based, force on force training as well as engaging in ongoing practice on his own. I’m not judging anyone who doesn’t (I don’t), I’m just saying it’d be wise if they did.

I am not suggesting that such training be mandated, but that it be made more affordable, available and that more people take advantage of it. If, hypothetically, armed citizens are to be seen as the countermeasure in this scenario, I see this as a more desirable solution than increasing the number people carrying firearms but not increasing the median level of training. Increasing both would probably be more desirable still.[/quote]

Good post but I will add:

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

Robert A. Heinlein

[/quote]

This is a sentiment I’ve heard echoed by my dad for as long as I can remember.

That said, if we are talking about armed citizens responding to “a large scale small arms attack on a community”, I’d have to say that we’ve moved beyond a breakdown in basic civility ;).

As an aside, I would think it might be particularly unpleasant to get into a gunfight with a group of people with a “suicide bomber” mentality. If they are not emotionally invested in surviving the engagement but are resolved to die while inflicting as many casualties as possible on a civilian population before they are taken out, it seems they’d have a definite edge. Not a pleasant thought.[/quote]

Also as an aside, if I were one of say, a dozen terrorists who had decided to spread havoc inside the Mall of America in Minneapolis in December in the midst of 10,000 shoppers and I suspected that let’s say only 3% of them were armed I’d have some valid concerns. 300 armed civilians plus security guards would be a serious factor to contend with. If we could get the carry ratio to 10% that would be 1,000 weapons in a relatively small place that could surely help minimize the devastation.
[/quote]

What’s the CCW rate among the general U.S. populace?

180

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
I’m Canadian so the armed citizenry (as far as right to bear is concerned at least) question is moot for me, but I have a few thoughts on this.

While I definitely would prefer to be able to shoot back at the bad guys than not, I have some real doubts as to how effective any haphazard group of people with indeterminate levels of training, no centralized leadership/organization or team tactics, sporadically armed with handguns would be at mounting resistance against a motivated group of organized riflemen. All the more so if they didn’t know they were in a gunfight until the shooting started.

As I recall, statistically a single active shooter will kill one person per minute. So if you began with the premise of, say, 5 coordinated fire teams of 4 men, well, you can do the math. The shock and awe factor alone would be inconceivable to most of us here. Again, this is not intended as an argument against being armed, just a sober assessment of how “armed” a CCW and a handgun makes you.

I expect most here are familiar with Jeff cooper’s excellent quote: “Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician”. Beans, I am a big fan of intelligent dry training from the holster for any gun owner. However, remember that trained shooters (if they don’t freeze) generally perform at no better than about 30% of their range accuracy an actual gunfight. If they have mastered an 8 inch group with 15 shoots at 45 feet, they will perform much better than someone who goes out a plinks from time to time, but they will almost certainly not reproduce that level of accuracy when it counts.

To me, for citizens to be an effective countermeasure there would need to be better, more widespread training (including advanced first aid), and some kind of SOP where team tactics are concerned that CCW holders formerly unknown to each other could default to in crisis. This is where I think countries with universal military service have a definite edge.
[/quote]

Being a lousy musician is not known for getting someone killed.

An aggressor with a gun will automatically take pause with initiating action if he knows his targets also have guns.

Having a gun gives you a fighting chance in the moment.[/quote]

I don’t disagree and said as much.

Since this is a hypothetical, I am suggesting that, hypothetically, if the “targets” had a higher level of effective and somewhat consistent training as well as weapons, they would become much harder targets than if they had weapons alone. Do you disagree?

If a private gun owner sees himself as a line of defence against such a scenario, I am suggesting that it is in his best interest and in that of those under his protection that he invest periodically in some kind of scenario based, force on force training as well as engaging in ongoing practice on his own. I’m not judging anyone who doesn’t (I don’t), I’m just saying it’d be wise if they did.

I am not suggesting that such training be mandated, but that it be made more affordable, available and that more people take advantage of it. If, hypothetically, armed citizens are to be seen as the countermeasure in this scenario, I see this as a more desirable solution than increasing the number people carrying firearms but not increasing the median level of training. Increasing both would probably be more desirable still.[/quote]

Good post but I will add:

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

Robert A. Heinlein

[/quote]

This is a sentiment I’ve heard echoed by my dad for as long as I can remember.

That said, if we are talking about armed citizens responding to “a large scale small arms attack on a community”, I’d have to say that we’ve moved beyond a breakdown in basic civility ;).

As an aside, I would think it might be particularly unpleasant to get into a gunfight with a group of people with a “suicide bomber” mentality. If they are not emotionally invested in surviving the engagement but are resolved to die while inflicting as many casualties as possible on a civilian population before they are taken out, it seems they’d have a definite edge. Not a pleasant thought.[/quote]

Also as an aside, if I were one of say, a dozen terrorists who had decided to spread havoc inside the Mall of America in Minneapolis in December in the midst of 10,000 shoppers and I suspected that let’s say only 3% of them were armed I’d have some valid concerns. 300 armed civilians plus security guards would be a serious factor to contend with. If we could get the carry ratio to 10% that would be 1,000 weapons in a relatively small place that could surely help minimize the devastation.
[/quote]

What’s the CCW rate among the general U.S. populace?
[/quote]

It’s difficult to tell. Some people are just happy to see you.