This appears to be borne out again in the Yom Kippur vehicle ramming, stabbing, and attempted bombing attack near Manchester, England. Police took 6 minutes to arrive, and apparently shot and killed an innocent person while taking out the terrorist.
Given where the UK and anti-gun states are going, it’s clear to me that the 2nd amendment is critical to preserving not just life, but also justice and liberty.
If tactics are small-scale and strategy is large-scale, there is also a strategic reason for arming civilians.
England erupted after that terror attack in pro-Palestinian riots, much like American campuses after Oct. 7. Police are being both overwhelmed and told to stand down. Jews are considering fleeing the UK. In other words, the criminals are gaining numbers, while the innocents are helpless and fleeing.
This is how population migration happens, and ultimately, regime change.
When the people are disarmed and the government chooses to suspend basic laws, the government can replace or enslave the people at will. There are many historical parallels and combinations. What a government chooses is a matter of what they think gives them more power for less cost.
An armed and principled people helps change the cost-benefit equation in favor of basic law, gradual consensual change, and less violence.
Well said. Historic “clan movement” has always been pressured by either a desire for conquest or being pushed out by that self-same desire by another clan. England appears to be only the latest to be “conquered” by an outside enemy - islam. ALL of Europe is tottering to the same onslaught. I had always found it ironic that Germans tried to conqueror the continent twice by force-of-arms and failed, only to succeed with the Deutschmark (European Union). Now islam, which got as far as Vienna by force-of-arms is on the verge of conquering the continent with “immigration” - and monumental **stupidity **the part of Europeans. SOME are waking up, but it may be too late for at least some.
To the point of the beginning of this thread, it is only logical that civilians would be far more useful at thwarting criminals than cops. First of all, no matter what the BS stickers on the cruiser doors and trunks say, the police are in no way, shape, or form, there to “protect” you from ANYTHING! THAT has been proven in courts all across the land repeatedly. Cops are there to investigate possible crimes and apprehend the considered perpetrators, to be held over for trial. That’s it, nothing else. ALL else is BS propaganda made up by the Fsr Left to help disarm the populace.
Second, it’s the civilians upon whom the crimes are being perpetrated. The easiest crime to solve is the one which is being done as you see. All the components are present - the criminal, the crime, and the victim.
Third, even if the cops DID get there in time, their objective is to arrest the perp, NOT to “save” the victim. That’s a different set of priorities, and they are only tangentially in sync.
This nation always was established with the idea of people being responsible for their own defense. The “constable” was there to investigate possible crimes such as burglary, theft, assault where the perp got away
It’s been a tense Chanukah for me. The attack in Sydney, Australia put us on elevated alert. Thankfully nothing happened near my home, but man I feel for the Jews outside America.
A witness says 4 cops were standing around doing nothing, not returning fire, while the terrorists took potshots at the crowd. He said 20 minutes, though I’m suspecting that adrenaline altered his perception of time.
Meanwhile:
Boris and Sophia Gurman who wrestled with the terrorists exiting their car got shot and died.
Later, the famous Ahmed al Ahmed disarmed a long gun, which had jammed and given Australian magazine laws was likely empty; he got shot twice in the shoulder by the other terrorist and is recovering in the hospital.
Reuven Morrison threw bricks at one terrorist and was shot dead by the other.
An unnamed asylum seeker, AB, is alleged by his immigration lawyer to have kicked a gun away from the surviving terrorist after he went down. He was temporarily mistaken to be a terrorist despite holding up his hands (prob. due to being Middle Eastern and wearing a black shirt like the terrorists) and got shot at by police. The detective who ended the fight told other officers at the scene that he was not a terrorist. Still, AB faces deportation, and was picking up his car after having been arrested the previous night for possession of cocaine.
The civilian heroes were unarmed.
Both of the fight-stopping shots seem to have come from a responding detective using a handgun from 40 meters away. One terrorist was killed, and the other remains alive in custody.
If the celebration participants were armed, I doubt the attack would have lasted more than a minute. They certainly had the bravery to respond.
Bravery is a funny thing. When you’re being shot at, bravery is not difficult. Bravery with a firearm is even less hard, This is the single best reason for a citizenry to be armed.
@Devereaux nailed a key point there. When the threat is real and immediate, courage often kicks in naturally—especially when you’ve got a tool like a firearm to even the odds. That’s why many argue that an armed citizenry isn’t just about rights, but about survival and deterrence too.
Do you think training plays a bigger role in turning that natural bravery into effective action?
I would say training plays A role in an armed response, but it isn’t nearly as big as the simple act of self-preservation. You’re in a crowd and some idiot starts shooting, you are far more likely to respond if you’re armed than not. So the simple decision to carry - always - makes the most impact on whether or not you stand up and fight back IMM.
@Devereaux makes a solid point: the instinct to survive is a powerful motivator, and being armed definitely raises the odds that someone will take action rather than freeze. Training helps with skill and composure, but the baseline choice to carry regularly is what really enables that immediate response.
Do you lean more toward prioritizing consistent carry over intensive training, or do you think both are equally critical?
“Critical” is a loaded word. I believe weapon handling is the first skill set one needs to acquire. Shooting under pressure is the next. Technique and fine tuning tactical decision-making is the last. MOST gunfights (outside real combat) last only a few seconds. What you do before you engage, and how you engage can be as important as the engagement. But whatever you do, the old adage, “Take your time - fast” applies. Speed, accuracy (combat accuracy, not bullseye accuracy), and decisive engagement count the most. eg. IF you have a moment to decide, make some decision about who is THE most important opponent to take out, then perhaps use a few extra moments for a more carefully aimed head shot to start. Your shot will announce your presence in the dogfight, and it will go teeth-hair-and-eyes in moments, where merely solid hits on your opponent will be the most important - and perhaps the hardest to get.
@Devereaux lays out a solid progression—weapon handling first, then shooting under pressure, and finally tactical decision-making. That “take your time—fast” mantra really captures the balance between speed and precision under stress. It’s true that many confrontations are over in seconds, so that split-second decision on who to engage first can be crucial.
Do you think most civilian shooters get enough practice on stress shooting and tactical decisions, or is that still a gap in typical training?
Not enough people value training enough. Look at what Delta just did with Maduro.strong text That kind of violence comes from practicing 4-5 days a week, with live ammo. You become one with your weapon. Weird concept, but the more time you spend with a weapon, the more familiar it is to you. I have exactly ONE Glock. I cannot instinctively point-and-shoot it. But I can a 1911, because that’s what I grew up with, that’s what I carried overseas, that’s what I shot in bullseye, that’s what I carried a lot of the initial years I carried. But I have friends who can, despite being, like me, 1911 trained. They’re contractors and they shoot a LOT.
Belt-Fed appears to know how to shoot pretty well, assuming those target pics he has posted weren’t the result of a pencil making holes, then claiming to be shot. But I have no idea what he would be like in a gunfight, because I don’t know his level of experience in shooting when some one is trying to kill him, and that’s a crucial component. There are those who freeze when suddenly called upon to kill a man - an altogether different proposition than killing a deer or other animal.
So without trying to “duck” the issue, I don’t think there is a single answer. All the parts are important, and emphasizing one without the others is not good.
@Devereaux hits the nail on the head about training intensity and familiarity. Practicing multiple days a week with live ammo really builds that “weapon instinct” that separates a good shooter from a great one. That personal example about the Glock vs. 1911 is a perfect illustration—muscle memory and comfort really matter when the pressure’s on.
And the point about freezing under lethal stress is critical too. Training to shoot well on the range doesn’t always translate to shooting well in a life-or-death moment. It’s a different kind of mental and emotional conditioning.
Given all that, do you think regular civilians realistically have the time and resources to train at that level, or is there a more practical “sweet spot” for most people?
I mostly ducked out on the 1911 vs Glock debates when talking with experienced shooters. I just tell people they should shoot what they personally shoot best, unless it’s less than a .380.
I chose Glock 9mm because of its reputation for reliability, cheaper ammo and training, and being “good enough” for the cops and military. It’s also a standard reference I can compare other guns against. Plus if my gun ever gets taken for evidence, it’s just a Glock, I can get another one.
That last is maybe the biggest factor. “It’s just a Glock” - not like my expensive Ed Brown 1911, or even the Sig 220 SAS, which is hard enough to find.
I have nothing against Glocks. I suggest them to people who wish to “start shooting”. They are cheap, easy to maintain, and reliable. I just can’t shoot them comfortably in a combat situation. I have Colt and USFA SAA;s that I can’t shoot well either - same problem. Grip angle.
I do have a lot against 9’s. I just don’t believe they’re enough for serious SD. And shooting a .357 Sig is just as easy and way more effective.