[SA Chris]

OT, but a friend of mine doesn't wear a helmet because she read a study that said that motorists are more likely to be careful around you if you aren't wearing them. Of course this doesn't account for the ones that "didn't see you" or falling off of your own account (which she did recently and banged her head quite hard).

[petejh]

The UK isn't a good country to use as a comparison. It has some of the most restrictive gun laws, and ownership of handguns has been prohibited entirely since Dunblane.
The US has some of the most nonrestrictive gun laws, and ownership - and the carrying in public - of handguns is allowed.

The arguments above put forward against armed guards aren't backed up by any conclusive evidence.
Neither can I find much evidence for armed guards.
Conclusion, ideological views at play against anything that supports the continuation of the current US gun laws. (no matter that it 'might' (unproven) actually stop some deaths).

I know what I think would be a more effective acute deterrent against a rogue person with a gun trying to kill people; and that's another person with a gun trained and employed to kill rogue shooters. But I'm not interested enough to think about it any further.

The original point was I don't think all shit to stick to Trump, just the shit that he warrants.

[dunnyg]

His argument seems reasonable but the statistics just seem overly simplified. E. g. heart disease is associated with obesity but id be very suprised if it isnt also associated with being old etc.. Interesting view point though.

[Will Hunt]

I know what I think would be a more effective acute deterrent against a rogue person with a gun trying to kill people; and that's another person with a gun trained and employed to kill rogue shooters. But I'm not interested enough to think about it any further.

Regardless of what other points have been made, I think this in particular doesn't make sense if you're specifically talking about a deterrent. A lot of these people are effectively suicide shooters. They either kill themselves at the end or are killed by the police in an inevitable shootout. How many public shooters actually expect to escape with their lives? Whether there's one person on site who might shoot them, or a SWAT team who turns up ten minutes later who might shoot them, the outcome is very much the same for the perpetrator.

[teestub]

The UK isn't a good country to use as a comparison. It has some of the most restrictive gun laws, and ownership of handguns has been prohibited entirely since Dunblane.
The US has some of the most nonrestrictive gun laws, and ownership - and the carrying in public - of handguns is allowed.

Are there not plenty of other countries with high levels of gun ownership and relatively lax ownership laws that don't suffer from the same problems with mass murderers? Canada always seems to come up as an easy comparison, but i'm not sure about the statistics

The arguments above put forward against armed guards aren't backed up by any conclusive evidence.

Hopefully there's not going to be enough shootings with and without guards to provide a statistically significant sample!

[galpinos]

Hopefully there's not going to be enough shootings with and without guards to provide a statistically significant sample!

Well, of the two big school shooting in 2018 (Stoneman Douglas and Santa Fee High Schools, 17 & 10 killed respectively) there were armed police officers* on site for both of them.

I think one had a sheriff's officer, i don't know the difference......

[petejh]

These aren’t simple issues though Trump and his ilk would like us to think otherwise. This article about the dangers of wearing bike helmets by Chris Boardman makes very interesting reading.
It may be more relevant than you think: real world outcomes can be very counterintuitive. Have a look:
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/article/20171126-Chris-Boardman-0

Totally OT now but..

That article by Boardman. If the author is truly making an argument for doing physical activity as a defense against ill health, and isn't just trying to get more people to take up his particular ideology and livelihood, then the best option, instead of making arguments for cycling, would be to encourage any form of physical activity - many others are available.
 
I wonder if Boardman gets a wage from British Cycling as its Policy Adviser; or from Manchester City Council as its Cycling & Walking Commissioner...

Neither does he acknowledge the huge numbers of seriously injured cyclists among the 'Killed or Seriously Injured'. Many of who, no doubt, will have suffered head injuries. Instead focusing on a tiny fraction of the overall KSI by trying to make an argument based just on the number of those killed and the typical type of fatal accident.

And what teestub said - his use of stats on deaths from diabetes, cancer and heart disease at the end in an effort to make an argument based around the link between ill health and people not exercising.. Sure, it's a factor. But the author makes it sound to the reader as if old-age, bad diet (including high carbohydrate energy drinks and the link between high carbs and heart disease-causing artery damage...), and air pollution (...) don't exist as significant risk factors for those diseases.

I doubt that good arteries (carb-loaders maybe not) and cardio fitness will be of much comfort if you're struck with a serious head injury.

 

[Oldmanmatt]

I think you fellas are mistaking the purpose of armed guards in general...

I was on of the security detail for the British High Commision in Lagos, Nigeria, for a brief stint, early 90’s, amongst other thingies and bits and bobs.

Number one is deterrent. This is the “bad neighbor” principle, whereby an overt presence encourages the attacker to pick a softer target. Obviously, this has limited effectiveness, where the target location is key to the attacker, rather than a social group.

However, the overt guard is not considered much more than symbolic. It is relatively easy to “get the jump” on such, or pick them off (bomb, sniping etc) prior to the attack; or it is relatively hard to protect the overt guard, depending on your viewpoint.

It is the combination of physical security measures and proximity of respose team that provide the depth, that allow the minimisation of the effectiveness of any attack.

Actually preventing the attack from occurring, is an entirely different bailiwick.

You’re asking if armed guards and response might prevent such attacks and that’s not their purpose, beyond that minor deterrent of the overt guard (who will prevent the less competent attacker, but is vulnerable to more sophisticated attacks).
However, they are certainly able to minimise the effectiveness of any attack.
Yes, many school shooters take their own lives and don’t intend to survive; but they usually only do so when confronted by a determined response or lack of targets.
Remove that response and they could carry on killing until they run out of ammo. Containing the shooter, protecting and evacuating potential targets, require an armed response.

So, yes, to a point, you are correct. A single, token, armed guard is pretty pointless, but I would hope the schools etc there are somewhat more nuanced...

Edit to reduce some personal details...

[mrjonathanr]

The UK isn't a good country to use as a comparison.

If you thought of it as a comparator to the US, then you did not understand the point.

As an example of how the best approach may need some careful thinking ....

Obviously the genie’s out of the bottle, the question is how to contain it. I don’t have the answers, that would be a fatuous thing to think.  Gung-ho solutions might be appealing, but more thought is merited than that.

[galpinos]

I think you fellas are mistaking the purpose of armed guards in general...

I appreciate what you said in your post (as you actually have the experience, I don't) but your reasons for the guard and the role they perform isn't what is being sold to the American public by Trump or the pro gun lobby. They repeatedly say that the armed guard would be able to shoot the perpetrator and therefore save lives.

Also re deterrent, it hasn't worked it the case of the two biggest school shootings this year (schools are very personal targets, it's never "any" school ut the school of the gunman) and if the purpose is to steer the gunman to a softer target, i.e. a school without an armed guard, then that doesn't seem like a great scenario either.

I would add, my leftie social media bubble also seems to tell me it's not just introducing armed guards into schools but arming the teachers. It would take more than a 2 day course over the summer break to give the R.E. teacher the skills to react in a manner that controlled the situation when a former pupil bursts into the classroom with a semi automatic assault rifle. I would imagine it would just lead to a greater proportion of the dead being teachers as they might be armed.

[Oldmanmatt]

I think you fellas are mistaking the purpose of armed guards in general...

I appreciate what you said in your post (as you actually have the experience, I don't) but your reasons for the guard and the role they perform isn't what is being sold to the American public by Trump or the pro gun lobby. They repeatedly say that the armed guard would be able to shoot the perpetrator and therefore save lives.

Also re deterrent, it hasn't worked it the case of the two biggest school shootings this year (schools are very personal targets, it's never "any" school ut the school of the gunman) and if the purpose is to steer the gunman to a softer target, i.e. a school without an armed guard, then that doesn't seem like a great scenario either.

I would add, my leftie social media bubble also seems to tell me it's not just introducing armed guards into schools but arming the teachers. It would take more than a 2 day course over the summer break to give the R.E. teacher the skills to react in a manner that controlled the situation when a former pupil bursts into the classroom with a semi automatic assault rifle. I would imagine it would just lead to a greater proportion of the dead being teachers as they might be armed.

Oh God! I’m not supporting the NRA/Trump/GOP line!
They are talking out of their collective arses, as I said; the overt guard is only a token, to deter only the most cursory or impromptu.

Armed response teams require extensive training and aptitude. I couldn’t do it, I get red mist (I was alright organising them though).
I can’t imagine anything worse than Joe public with a gun.

I’m sure Pete remembers plenty of, supposedly, highly selected, well trained, individuals; who he would never trust wit a sharpened tea spoon outside of a combat situation. I know I do (though, any Matelot with a gun is terrifying and I was often not allowed to play with bang sticks, where my superior was wearing a green uniform...).

[petejh]

The UK isn't a good country to use as a comparison.

If you thought of it as a comparator to the US, then you did not understand the point.

As an example of how the best approach may need some careful thinking ....

Obviously the genie’s out of the bottle, the question is how to contain it. I don’t have the answers, that would be a fatuous thing to think.  Gung-ho solutions might be appealing, but more thought is merited than that.

The genie isn't fresh out of the bottle, in the US it's been out for decades. There's nothing new here.

Of course it requires careful thought, that should go without saying. There are all sorts of other measures. I picked up on armed guards because people have used it to slate Trump (who is most definitely a cunt), but if Obama had suggested it I think we'd be having a very different discussion.
It's an obvious point that you can't stop an armed intruder intent on killing you, with policy. You might prevent another armed intruder years down the line. But the gun laws and having the right to bear arms written into the constitution in the US simply aren't going to change significantly in any short time-frame and armed attacks aren't going to stop happening. Seems more prudent to me to put in place whatever other measures you can until policy has an effect.

Another point for those who think guards are ineffective - it isn't actually that difficult to become good with a pistol or rifle. It's far less to do with being some gung-ho killer and more to do with calmness, breathing and technique. Much like climbing actually. Being a civilian guard employed for the purpose of guarding a school or church definitely doesn't preclude you from being highly competent with a pistol or rifle under pressure. Certainly no reason that they should be any less competent than a civilian attacker. 

[Oldmanmatt]

 
The genie isn't fresh out of the bottle, in the US it's been out for decades. There's nothing new here.

Of course it requires careful thought, that should go without saying. There are all sorts of other measures. I picked up on armed guards because people have used it to slate Trump (who is most definitely a cunt), but if Obama had suggested it I think we'd be having a very different discussion.

That’s a considerable understatement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

And I thought it was common knowledge.

Pete’s wrong though. I could use a rifle (personal best was a headshot on a reindeer, at 350mtrs with a first gen Arctic Warfare (L96Athingy or whatever) and a fancy sight. No record breaker, but not bad for a Matelot.
On the other hand, I had to qualify with a 9mm (Browning? Can’t remember) and it took quite a while before I could actually get a round in a target on the range I was actually in, rather than the adjacent one, or an innocent passerby or the range staff. The Booty Seargent in charge had many words to share, some of which I had not heard before.
I was not alone in this, we all struggled with hand guns at anything greater than 30’ or so.
They had us try this “snap shooting” thing at one point (single hand, from holstered) and how no one was killed is still a mystery to me.

[TobyD]

The president’s most inflammatory remarks concerned the actions of US troops at the border: “Anybody throwing stones, rocks … we will consider that a firearm because there’s not much difference when you get hit in the face with a rock.”

Really. The NRA will be happy with rocks as well then.

[petejh]

Saw this on the news this morning. Trump's clearly lining up for an ugly confrontation.

Pete’s wrong though. I could use a rifle (personal best was a headshot on a reindeer, at 350mtrs with a first gen Arctic Warfare (L96Athingy or whatever) and a fancy sight. No record breaker, but not bad for a Matelot.
On the other hand, I had to qualify with a 9mm (Browning? Can’t remember) and it took quite a while before I could actually get a round in a target on the range I was actually in, rather than the adjacent one, or an innocent passerby or the range staff......

It's a personal thing. I was good with both. I have some medals for pistol snap-shooting competitions and was always good with a rifle. Get me.

[Will Hunt]

It's interesting that Matt and Pete's views are reasonably aligned on this, and that normally you would expect them to disagree on political issues, and that they are the two people (as far as I'm aware) who are contributing to this thread who have actually served in the forces.

I'm not sure exactly what that says but I think it says something.

[andy popp]

I'm not sure exactly what that says but I think it says something.

I'm not it sure its says much at all; the military and law enforcement have very different roles in society, even if many cops here are veterans. This summer a cop shot and killed an unarmed man (of colour) a mile from my house. The man was acting erratically (its on video) but in the view of many the situation did not require lethal force. The cop had only been in the force for a few months and had only recently left the army, where he'd served tours in Iraq (I believe). In this situation he seems to have acted much more as a soldier in combat rather than a cop whose priority should have been de-escalation. In short, military experience isn't necessarily good preparation for being a cop. Cops here also receive ludicrously little training - literally a few weeks I think, but that's another issue.

[TobyD]

I have to say I very much respect Matt and Pete's opinions on this as they have far more firearms experience than I will ever have, having only shot 22 on a range and pheasants / ducks with a shotgun.

I can see that armed guards might be a tempting short term measure but Trump's enthusiasm for it has nothing to do with any thought through plan or evidence, merely the fact that it will appeal to his voter base.
Much like his foreign policy or immigration policy, his interest seems to be entirely in retaining and extending his power, rather than government of the country he is supposed to be president of.

[Oldmanmatt]

I'm not sure exactly what that says but I think it says something.

I'm not it sure its says much at all; the military and law enforcement have very different roles in society, even if many cops here are veterans. This summer a cop shot and killed an unarmed man (of colour) a mile from my house. The man was acting erratically (its on video) but in the view of many the situation did not require lethal force. The cop had only been in the force for a few months and had only recently left the army, where he'd served tours in Iraq (I believe). In this situation he seems to have acted much more as a soldier in combat rather than a cop whose priority should have been de-escalation. In short, military experience isn't necessarily good preparation for being a cop. Cops here also receive ludicrously little training - literally a few weeks I think, but that's another issue.

The inaptitude (even ineptitude) of an individual does not a compelling case make...

And, an armed guard or response team, are very different beasts from patrolling law enforcement.

A surprisingly large number of servicemen and women transition quite well into civilian society without turning into Rambo. Possibly because they’re humans, you know, with human like tendencies and mushy sentimental bits, even (shock! Horror!) EMPATHY!

Some individuals do not, and that is tragic and the lack of support for them is shameful.

It is not something limited to former Service personnel though. My own father took early retirement after 24 years as a Copper (and a selection of gongs and commendations), when he lost it with a gobby teen as he was returning from attending the fifteenth cot death of his career. No one was hurt, but he knew he could not trust himself again. That was a gritty, wise, 40 something, self aware enough to listen to vibes in his own head; where such “snapping” takes place in a younger, less experienced mind... ouch!


Actually, overall, your argument seems to be more that the personnel in question are too hastily assembled and poorly trained, and that maybe.

The fact that there is a need for them, is bloody awful. We only really need firearms to protect places where physical security cannot work, in this country.
I mean, places where you can’t just lock the door.
Because firearms are less of an issue, a locked door is a significant barrier. A school can lock the doors, once the kids are inside, and your knife attacker can hack at it with his twelve inch carving knife, all day, and not be a threat.
But, as we have seen, open spaces, airports, stations etc are vulnerable to attacks by non-firearm weilding nutters, who can create mass casualties. Despite on at least one occasion, a well trained officer trying to stop such an attacker with non-lethal force (a baton, I believe), only the intervention of an armed response team ended the incidents.

It sucks, but they’re needed.

You know, rough men, standing ready, and all that.

[Oldmanmatt]

She had me at hello.

Compare that to this tosser ( sorry, is that biased? Replace it with “nice guy” or something):

http://www.khq.com/story/39387853/spokane-valley-representative-under-scrutiny-for-leaked-manifesto

[mrjonathanr]

A surprisingly large number of servicemen and women transition quite well into civilian society without turning into Rambo. Possibly because they’re humans, you know, with human like tendencies and mushy sentimental bits, even (shock! Horror!) EMPATHY!

On a side note, Trump has empathy, in fact he is very gifted in this respect. The problem is that along with his great understanding of what other people feel, he really doesn't give a stuff about their welfare.

[Oldmanmatt]

A surprisingly large number of servicemen and women transition quite well into civilian society without turning into Rambo. Possibly because they’re humans, you know, with human like tendencies and mushy sentimental bits, even (shock! Horror!) EMPATHY!

On a side note, Trump has empathy, in fact he is very gifted in this respect. The problem is that along with his great understanding of what other people feel, he really doesn't give a stuff about their welfare.

Is that empathy?
Surely empathy is the actual “feeling” of anothers distress/joy/whatever, not merely recognising which emotion another is experiencing and playing to it?

I believe this is called “the mask of sanity”, no more empathic than an algorithm that recognises a sad face.
A bit like my O level physics master.

[mrjonathanr]

As I understand it empathy is the capacity to understand the emotion others feel. Giving a damn is a whole different ballgame...


I'm not trying to be picky with you, I just wanted to highlight how emotionally clever he is. Moral qualities are another issue entirely!

[webbo]

He is about as empathetic as a block of concrete. Anyone is taken in by his pretence must be seriously emotionally challenged but as that appears to be half of the most powerful nation in the world.
I think we might be in the shit.

[petejh]

It's nothing new is it. Some people have extremely high empathy and some have extremely low empathy while most are somewhere in the middle of the bell curve. Society reflects that and there are suitable places and roles for nearly all types. It isn't a requirement to have high empathy to be a good, moral. loving and successful person.


Empathy Quotient
Systemizing Quotient
Aspergers Quotient

You should take those three Habrich. Bet you're low on empathy and high on systemizing..