Deadly attack in Belgium

[MrJonno]

I accept that one day the police may need to be armed in the UK, I wouldnt be happy about it through and at the moment a majority of British police have threatened to resign rather than carry a gun. If the police do request to routinely armed then it will be a very very sad day but no one is going to try and veto it

[Tyrannical]

After the last attack in Norway people are less reluctant to jump out and claim it looks like the work of the Muzzies.

Indirectly, it still was.

[amused]

Let's see:
Belgium,

Strict gun control laws. Check!
Prohibition on lawful concealed carry. Check!
Ineffective police state. Check!
Large crowds of unarmed citizens. Check!
Nutter with guns and hand grenades the only armed person in the crowd. Check!

Chalk another massacre up to hoplophobia and a disarmed citizenry. Check!

You're waffling....

[Wumbologist]

@Amok - absolutely right. Having more armed people taking potshots in a large crowd like this would have lead to an even higher death toll. The average hoplomaniac seems to think that real life is like a shooting range.

He was in an elevated position. I'm not saying handguns would have been effective in the situation, but I find it a little ridiculous to think that if people in the crowd were armed they would have somehow shot more people at street level while trying to hit a guy on a rooftop. The bullets generally go in the direction the barrel is pointed.

Better a gun nut going on the rampage every weekend than having the general lunatic public carrying guns.

They have a discussion in the UK about whether if the police had been armed during the Cumbria shooting and its almost certain it would have saved a couple of lives but sensibly it was decided that the arms escalation if this happened would kill far more people.

You do not take actions that will save a persons life if this is at the cost of a lot more lives

I am perfectly happy for police to go armed; they virtually all are in Australia...

Just not keen on the idea of hordes of gun-toting civilians thinking they are reincarnations of Wyatt Earp...

I know you're a decent guy and the typical "middle ground" in gun debates on here, but as a person who carries a concealed handgun every day, I take personal offense to this characterization.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:
Possible, but doubtful, since armed law abiding citizens aren't the ones shooting INTO the crowd. According to FBI statistics, armed citizens are 11 times less likely to shoot in a violent confrontation than police officers are, which brings the chances of mistaken identity down quite a bit. But what we do know is that when the government disarms its own citizens, they are helpless before armed killers, and regardless of the associated risks, disarming ANY law-abiding citizen is immoral and a violation of their fundamental human rights.

I'm not getting it. The scenario I was talking about was not law-abiding citizens shooting INTO a crowd. It was law-abiding citizens shooting other well-meaning, law-abiding citizens, after the non-law-abiding citizen has already blown his/her own brains out, because they see people holding guns moments after someone (or a few someones, because, who knows at that point?) has/have gone feral in the marketplace.

Interestingly enough, in those instances where armed citizens have intervened (like the Texas Tower incident) they did not have any difficulty identifying where the shooter was. You see, armed citizens don't just pull their guns and start blasting away, they take time to assess the situation and decide if another person holding a gun is an armed citizen or a terrorist based on what that person DOES with the gun. If he's randomly aiming it at people and pulling the trigger, it's a good bet he's not doing so lawfully, and may be shot. If he's aiming it at a high point from which fire is coming into a crowd, it's a pretty good bet (but not 100 percent) that he's looking for the shooter to target. Also, those who are armed and who are responding to defend others are generally going the opposite direction from the crowd.

Coincidentally, I wandered down to an outdoor Christmas craft market here this evening on my dinner break, and was thinking about what would happen if either a nutter or a terrorist started shooting. There were probably 400 people walking around the stalls, and another 100 or so inside the various cafes and storefront locations. If I had have had a gun (keeping in mind the assumption that I'd know how to use it), if shooting broke out somewhere out of my range of vision, and also adding the possibility that not only I but everyone else was legally able to have a gun, who would we shoot? Someone holding a gun? What if he/she' turns out to be another good guy, who pulled out his/her gun to stop the bad guy(s)?

Well, that's the downside to lawful self defense, you have to wait till you're certain who the bad guy is. You don't just get to shoot anyone carrying a gun. That's something they teach you in your training classes.

The benefit of having MANY armed people in any crowd is that several of them will identify where the shooter is and will move towards that point, against the flow of the crowd, and anyone else who has a gun can do the same. When they have identified the criminal, they can begin firing, and it should be reasonably obvious what and who they are shooting at.

Even the bogus Diane Sawyer "experiment" with students in a classroom failed to demonstrate the sort of thing you're worried about.

The alternative is, of course, for everyone to simply be a victim, like the folks in Norway. I prefer to take the chance that someone would mistake me for the shooter while giving myself the opportunity to defend myself and everyone else.

[Seth]

@Amok - absolutely right. Having more armed people taking potshots in a large crowd like this would have lead to an even higher death toll. The average hoplomaniac seems to think that real life is like a shooting range.

No, he's not, and the average hoplophobe doesn't understand the dynamics of such situations or how those who choose to carry firearms react in emergencies like that. Here's a clue: they don't begin randomly shooting other armed citizens. And the more armed citizens there are in any society, the less likely it is that they will do so accidentally. When the shooting starts, it's pretty damned obvious who the bad guy is. He's the one walking around shooting people at random.

[Wumbologist]

Yup. If they had been armed, some of them would have likely been able to intervene or at least distract the killer from shooting others.

But, like most of the rest of the world, they are sheeple in Belgium, at the mercy of whomever has the guns.

It's highly unlikely. Even here in the US with legal concealed carry in most states, incidents like this are rarely interrupted or stopped by law-abiding gun owners. It's hypothetically possible, sure. However, in practical terms, even the most gun-friendly states typically have concealed carry rates in the low single digit percent of the population. The odds of a concealed carrier happening to be around when something like this are incredibly low. Add in the fact that most of these sort of incidents happen in places where legal carry is prohibited, and it becomes even less likely. And even if you do happen to have a concealed carrier in the right place at the right time, they're at a disadvantage in a chaotic situation like this, as they have to be mindful of bystanders whereas the maniac does not. Yes, a law-abiding gun owner COULD theoretically stop an incident like this... but the odds are too negligible to take seriously.

Well said, Amok. I'm not denying that there may be situations where armed civilians in the right place at the right time might well be effective and save lives. However, this was probably not one of those times.

I don't believe incidents like this are useful evidence in the ongoing gun debate...

Now that I've picked on Seth for a bit I'll address the other side of this. Incidents like this might not prove the point Seth is trying to claim, but they do prove a point regarding gun control. This man wanted to kill a lot of people, and despite relatively strict gun laws in Belgium he was able to acquire an illegal firearm and HAND GRENADES to accomplish that goal. He had intent and he found a way.

[Seth]

Yup. If they had been armed, some of them would have likely been able to intervene or at least distract the killer from shooting others.

But, like most of the rest of the world, they are sheeple in Belgium, at the mercy of whomever has the guns.

It's highly unlikely. Even here in the US with legal concealed carry in most states, incidents like this are rarely interrupted or stopped by law-abiding gun owners.

True, but only because there are (or have been) so few such incidents (they are rare) and there are still so few citizens who carry. I do note that one shopping mall shooting was stopped by an off-duty police officer who engaged the shooter long enough for people to escape and the police to arrive. The more guns that are lawfully carried in society, the more likely it is that there will be someone around who has one when such a thing happens. Of course the shopping-mall crowd shooting sort of attack is one of the least likely scenarios that an armed citizen would be called up on to use his weapon in. Much more common are house break ins, muggings, armed robberies and the like, and the fact is that armed citizens use their weapons as many as two million times per year to foil such crimes in the US already.

It's hypothetically possible, sure. However, in practical terms, even the most gun-friendly states typically have concealed carry rates in the low single digit percent of the population. The odds of a concealed carrier happening to be around when something like this are incredibly low.

Quite true, but not really relevant. We're discussing what happens IF there IS someone who is legally armed around. At the Gabby Gifford shooting in Arizona, bystander Joseph Zamudio, who was legally armed and ran from the grocery store towards the shooting, assisted in detaining the shooter but fortunately did not have to fire any shots, thanks to the quick action of other bystanders who jumped the shooter.

Add in the fact that most of these sort of incidents happen in places where legal carry is prohibited, and it becomes even less likely. And even if you do happen to have a concealed carrier in the right place at the right time, they're at a disadvantage in a chaotic situation like this, as they have to be mindful of bystanders whereas the maniac does not. Yes, a law-abiding gun owner COULD theoretically stop an incident like this... but the odds are too negligible to take seriously.

Not really. They are at a disadvantage, but the fact that they are armed gives them a tremendous advantage over everyone else. It's unlikely that I'll ever be present at such a shooting, but I carry a gun, and have for a quarter-century, anyway. That's my choice to make. And since it does no one any harm, and places no one in danger when I do, there is no rational reason why I should not be permitted to do so, or why any other law-abiding citizen who chooses to do so should.

However unlikely it is that I might actually need to use my gun, my right to be armed against that eventuality, and to peaceably and safely carry a gun, far, far exceeds the vacuous and paranoid fears of people like Mrjonno. And the experiment in the US has proven conclusively two things: Armed citizens don't go around shooting people for no reason so there is no blood running in the gutters from allowing them to carry; and the more people who lawfully carry, the lower the violent crime rate is.

Well said, Amok. I'm not denying that there may be situations where armed civilians in the right place at the right time might well be effective and save lives. However, this was probably not one of those times.

I don't believe incidents like this are useful evidence in the ongoing gun debate...

Now that I've picked on Seth for a bit I'll address the other side of this. Incidents like this might not prove the point Seth is trying to claim, but they do prove a point regarding gun control. This man wanted to kill a lot of people, and despite relatively strict gun laws in Belgium he was able to acquire an illegal firearm and HAND GRENADES to accomplish that goal. He had intent and he found a way.

Yup. Anti-gun laws only disarm people who obey the law.

[MrJonno]

Now that I've picked on Seth for a bit I'll address the other side of this. Incidents like this might not prove the point Seth is trying to claim, but they do prove a point regarding gun control. This man wanted to kill a lot of people, and despite relatively strict gun laws in Belgium he was able to acquire an illegal firearm and HAND GRENADES to accomplish that goal. He had intent and he found a way

I've and I don't anyone anyone else has ever claimed that weapon restrictions will stop someone who really and preplanned wants to kill someone. However very few murders are like that almost all are spur of the moment actions or domestics where one person suddenly snaps.

Typically murder = murderer says you looking at me/my girl /you spilt my drink potential murderer tries to kill victim with fists fails or they are more armed and are the more likely to succeed . The other scenario is bloke comes back to the pub in a bad mood taking it out on his girlfriend/wife

[Wumbologist]

I've and I don't anyone anyone else has ever claimed that weapon restrictions will stop someone who really and preplanned wants to kill someone. However very few murders are like that almost all are spur of the moment actions or domestics where one person suddenly snaps.

That particular type of murder likely accounts for a similar number of murders per capita anywhere you go, and regardless of what particular weapons laws are in place. I would hesitate to claim that "almost all" murders fit in that category, though.

[MrJonno]

I've and I don't anyone anyone else has ever claimed that weapon restrictions will stop someone who really and preplanned wants to kill someone. However very few murders are like that almost all are spur of the moment actions or domestics where one person suddenly snaps.

That particular type of murder likely accounts for a similar number of murders per capita anywhere you go, and regardless of what particular weapons laws are in place. I would hesitate to claim that "almost all" murders fit in that category, though.

I would say it would argue with a similar number of people per capita trying to kill each other. If you try to punch and kick someone to death yes you may succeed but most the time even if no one interferes you won't succeed. The home heavily armed you are the more likely you are to leave a corpse as opposed to someone who has a black eye

[JimC]

It's highly unlikely. Even here in the US with legal concealed carry in most states, incidents like this are rarely interrupted or stopped by law-abiding gun owners. It's hypothetically possible, sure. However, in practical terms, even the most gun-friendly states typically have concealed carry rates in the low single digit percent of the population. The odds of a concealed carrier happening to be around when something like this are incredibly low. Add in the fact that most of these sort of incidents happen in places where legal carry is prohibited, and it becomes even less likely. And even if you do happen to have a concealed carrier in the right place at the right time, they're at a disadvantage in a chaotic situation like this, as they have to be mindful of bystanders whereas the maniac does not. Yes, a law-abiding gun owner COULD theoretically stop an incident like this... but the odds are too negligible to take seriously.

That is a good antidote to the Tom Clancy fantasy that Seth was expounding (it was in the context of a "wild west" fantasy that I made the Wyatt Earp comment, not to insult gun owners per se, but to attack the fantasy). For a wide variety of reasons, it is unlikely that having whatever number of gun-owning civilans around would have made a difference in this (and many other) situations.

Well said, Amok. I'm not denying that there may be situations where armed civilians in the right place at the right time might well be effective and save lives. However, this was probably not one of those times.

I don't believe incidents like this are useful evidence in the ongoing gun debate...

Now that I've picked on Seth for a bit I'll address the other side of this. Incidents like this might not prove the point Seth is trying to claim, but they do prove a point regarding gun control. This man wanted to kill a lot of people, and despite relatively strict gun laws in Belgium he was able to acquire an illegal firearm and HAND GRENADES to accomplish that goal. He had intent and he found a way.

Well, possibly we simply have to accept that a certain number of such situations will happen. However, the other side of the coin is to devote more resources to police and security intelligence, in an effort to reduce the availabilty of illegal firearms. There are people making big money from this; I would doubt that it is impossible to at least reduce the numbers. The penalties for selling such things should be made draconian; perhaps the same as for murder...

[Seth]

It's highly unlikely. Even here in the US with legal concealed carry in most states, incidents like this are rarely interrupted or stopped by law-abiding gun owners. It's hypothetically possible, sure. However, in practical terms, even the most gun-friendly states typically have concealed carry rates in the low single digit percent of the population. The odds of a concealed carrier happening to be around when something like this are incredibly low. Add in the fact that most of these sort of incidents happen in places where legal carry is prohibited, and it becomes even less likely. And even if you do happen to have a concealed carrier in the right place at the right time, they're at a disadvantage in a chaotic situation like this, as they have to be mindful of bystanders whereas the maniac does not. Yes, a law-abiding gun owner COULD theoretically stop an incident like this... but the odds are too negligible to take seriously.

That is a good antidote to the Tom Clancy fantasy that Seth was expounding (it was in the context of a "wild west" fantasy that I made the Wyatt Earp comment, not to insult gun owners per se, but to attack the fantasy). For a wide variety of reasons, it is unlikely that having whatever number of gun-owning civilans around would have made a difference in this (and many other) situations.

However unlikely it may be, it's the right of EVERY citizen to carry defensive arms to provide for their own safety (which is the most important consideration) and since it has been proven that allowing lawful concealed carry not only does not result in more danger to the public, but far LESS danger, there is no reason not to allow it, as 40 states now do. And what we know of nearly every such incident as that in Belgium is that where the public is forbidden to carry arms, nobody but the killer has any arms, and therefore no chance to put a stop to the attack or protect their own lives at need. That much is certain, and that is utterly immoral and violative of fundamental human rights.

[JimC]

It's highly unlikely. Even here in the US with legal concealed carry in most states, incidents like this are rarely interrupted or stopped by law-abiding gun owners. It's hypothetically possible, sure. However, in practical terms, even the most gun-friendly states typically have concealed carry rates in the low single digit percent of the population. The odds of a concealed carrier happening to be around when something like this are incredibly low. Add in the fact that most of these sort of incidents happen in places where legal carry is prohibited, and it becomes even less likely. And even if you do happen to have a concealed carrier in the right place at the right time, they're at a disadvantage in a chaotic situation like this, as they have to be mindful of bystanders whereas the maniac does not. Yes, a law-abiding gun owner COULD theoretically stop an incident like this... but the odds are too negligible to take seriously.

That is a good antidote to the Tom Clancy fantasy that Seth was expounding (it was in the context of a "wild west" fantasy that I made the Wyatt Earp comment, not to insult gun owners per se, but to attack the fantasy). For a wide variety of reasons, it is unlikely that having whatever number of gun-owning civilans around would have made a difference in this (and many other) situations.

However unlikely it may be, it's the right of EVERY citizen to carry defensive arms to provide for their own safety (which is the most important consideration) and since it has been proven that allowing lawful concealed carry not only does not result in more danger to the public, but far LESS danger, there is no reason not to allow it, as 40 states now do. And what we know of nearly every such incident as that in Belgium is that where the public is forbidden to carry arms, nobody but the killer has any arms, and therefore no chance to put a stop to the attack or protect their own lives at need. That much is certain, and that is utterly immoral and violative of fundamental human rights.

I guess you can say that for the US, but it is the height of arrogance to project those views onto the rest of the world.

At the risk of offending my many US friends, I will say that that is a general tendency which seems far too common, and is one of the reasons why the US is regarded as arrogant and overbearing. Tend your own garden, and don't set the agenda for the rest of the world...

[Wumbologist]

I would say it would argue with a similar number of people per capita trying to kill each other. If you try to punch and kick someone to death yes you may succeed but most the time even if no one interferes you won't succeed. The home heavily armed you are the more likely you are to leave a corpse as opposed to someone who has a black eye

In the realm of private domestic disturbances it likely won't make shit of difference. As far as public incidents like what you're describing, it's hard to say either way, but incidents like that just aren't particularly common here, and I think that your perception of how often it happens is likely more of a British phenomenon. We just don't have bar brawls here as often as you depict. And the law-abiding gun owners in the US are typically pretty sensible about not mixing guns with drinking. I'll be going out for drinks tonight, and my gun will be staying home, locked away in the safe.