(courtesy bostonherald.com)

A TTAG commentator writes:

According to boston.cbslocal.com, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev walked up to the MIT officer’s car and shot him in the head, unprovoked. It appears to be an assassination. But why? How did that fit into their plan? The operating theory: they were short one gun. The older brother had a gun. They wanted to get a gun for the younger brother. The fastest and most efficient way they could think of doing it was a surprise attack on a cop, to take his weapon and go. Officer Collier had a retention holster; it’s like a three-way lock. If you don’t know how to remove the gun, you’re not going to get it out. There was apparently an attempt to yank it. The Tsarnaevs couldn’t get it and left. Regardless, this is exactly what will keep happening if any sort of real clamp-down occurs on buying guns: bad guys will simply kill to acquire them.

45 Responses to This is What Happens to A Disarmed Populace: Bad Guys Get Guns Edition

  1. I agree with the sentiment that bad guys will find ways to get guns. This is an extreme example. Don’t know that many scumbags are as bold as to sneak attack a cop and try and take his gun though. Still, it did happen…

    • You could certainly expect home break-ins, car break-ins (that NRA sticker looks more like a “break into my car and look for guns!” advertisement every day), etc from criminals specifically looking to arm up. It already happens, of course. In a scenario where guns are “grandfathered” but there’s no practical way of purchasing a new one (or the process is so long and expensive and cumbersome), it’ll dang sure happen. Then, get some newspapers to publish lists of where registered gun owners live again!!! Oy vey.

  2. Laws against the ownership of firearms do nothing other than provide an incentive for those who wish to acquire and others to provide said items illegally, as it creates an immediate market demand. The result being, a push for more laws against the ownership of firearms. That vicious circle was first demonstrated with the banning of alcohol, which we all know how well that experiment worked out.

  3. “Regardless, this is exactly what will keep happening if any sort of real clamp-down occurs on buying guns: bad guys will simply kill to acquire them.” ~RF
    ———-

    This is slightly manipulative. To believe that this will be happening is no better than the anti-gunner cult saying that unless all guns are banned more kids will be shot.

    If your words are taken at face-value, people will now believe that if they own and carry a gun, they are automatic targets for the bad guys.

    • To be fair we are all targets for bad guys regardless of if we are armed or not. Thus we work to make sure we are a less attractive target (being alert and aware of our surroundings) and a harder target (being armed).

    • Not before the bad guy know you carry a gun. if one carries concealed, no bad guy will know if he’s a valuable target to get a gun from.

  4. This article exposes the main reason why open carry advocates should reconsider their position and work towards consealed carry.

    • Not necessarily. The main reason an “open carrier” can be targeted for his weapon is that here are so few people doing it. A criminal is not likely to “target an open carrier” for their weapon if there are a multitude of open carriers around. In this particular incident the officer was alone. Had there been other openly armed individuals around (either law enforcement or otherwise) then the odds are that they would not have attacked him.

      Note that the criminal who would target a lone open carrier (for their weapon or otherwise) is the same person who would target a lone police officer.

      If you choose to open carry you must be as vigilant or more so than the average law enforcement officer.

    • I disagree. It gives evidence that you need a good holster. Open carriers need to be more aware of their surroundings than those that carry concealed.

      OC vs CC is just beating ourselves up. If OC is legal and you think it best, go a head and OC. If you prefer CC, go ahead and CC. We as a firearm community and carry community should worry about if someone is OC vs CC. Isn’t our goal that people carry responsibly?

      As for the holster, its a Level 3 and harder to extract the firearm than a standard retention holster or even a Level 2 like the serpa. The downside to these holsters is that they stick out further from the hip than other holsters.

      • It isn’t very difficult to extract a firearm from a level 3. I’m not a big proponent of open carry outside of uniform, because the sole open carrier is such an inviting target. In this case, and in others before it, having a firearm and being in uniform was an inviting target. But to each their own.

    • Some people open carry because the state has eviscerated the second amendment prohibition on infringing our right to bear arms and demanded we “ask permission” of the state to conceal carry. some even require finger prints or (like nj) rendered it impossible.

      • +100

        The tactical advantage/disadvantage of open carry can be debated until the cows come home. But you ‘concealed carry only’ guys need to step back a bit and look at the BIG picture.

        I advocate open carry for one simple reason. IT IS MY RIGHT. Especially if I have to ask the state for permission to carry concealed. And it eliminates any infringement of that right by public SERVANTS who wish to toss their authoratah around trying to keep me ‘in my place’ based upon their personal biases.

  5. Correction-DUMB bad guys will risk their hide to steal an officers gun.

    Smart bad guys find a broke police property clerk,and bring them a large suitcase of money.

    If the smart bad guy is particularly poor, just break into the police armory.

    Either way, the scumbags will always be armed.Theyll just target the police for straw sales when the laws on civil ownership become oppressive.

  6. So true. While stationed in Europe as an USAF SP, we were warned about criminals that would ambush and kill us for our sidearms. At one time, I remember Belgium solders complained heavily about having to carry firearms while on guard duty for this reason. As you can imagine, there is really no realistic defense for this kind of ambush. I have friends in law enforcement (pro-2nd folks like us) that I would not want to see put in this predicament.

  7. Good thing MA doesn’t let citizens carry or else they might waive randomly murdered citizens on the street…oh, wait

  8. One thing I was truly hoping for is when the terrorist were on the run if they had broke into some NRA instructors home for refuge and ended up on the business end of their training aids.

    If the civilian populace is unarmed it will take hundreds of armed police just like in Boston to keep us safe. Or it will be like England where home invasions and violent crimes are actually higher AND we are still all paying 60% income tax to pay for our army of police and of course Obamacare

      • This ^^

        As the gun grabbers disarm sections of the US, one at a time. An unintended consequence will occur, a substantial rise in crime as the criminals move in to a target rich environment. They will use guns of course, because they are easy to get and even make.

        Here’s a tale of woe for you:

        Many years back I was in Fiji because of a coup that had opposed the government and chaos was the rule.

        How did a completely unarmed poplace over throw the gov’t? The had sympathizers infiltrate the Army, broke into the armory and stole the heavy weapons. So much for that.

        Another story, in the chaos after the coup, the rural towns had no police. One sad story came over to us where a group of thugs armed with machetes and get this, a single barrel, top break shotgun loaded with birdshot, came into an undefended, unarmed town, tied up the men, had their way with the women and stole everything of value.

        An unarmed poplace will always be victims. Exactly what the liberal progressives want. Sheep who can’t vote their rights away fast enough to gain a little perceived security.

        • the worst part is they don’t even NEED guns. all they have to do is be stronger than whoever they target since their targets won’t be able to equalize the odds any longer. IE no way a TWEEN could take out TWO aggressors were it not for her pop’s rifle. SHE would be dead or worse.

          THIS IS WHY we have the right to bear arms. SO WE CAN DEFEND against an otherwise stronger adversary.

  9. This was obviously amature hour, had these terrorist wanna be’s been thinking they would have just cut the officers belt and taken the gun with them…but I digress this does prove the point criminals will always find a way to get a gun.

  10. I think the Dems need another knee jerk law proposed like… “Take East Coast Immigrants Off Welfare to Stop them from Buying Fireworks Law” Maybe the gang of Ocho can get behind that one… Manchin can lead em.

  11. “Regardless, this is exactly what will keep happening if any sort of real clamp-down occurs on buying guns: bad guys will simply kill to acquire them.”

    This is what happened in Newtown.

    • You’re right, Ralph. Very percipient.
      I might add that if handguns were commonly/legally sold with no background checks or waiting periods, then wouldn’t the MIT officer still be alive? Hey, if it saves one life . . .

  12. if you make this argument in opposition to gun control measures, then you can’t say that mass shootings are extremely rare when objecting to gun control. because this is orders of magnitude more rare. it also undermines the concept that good guys having guns acts as a deterrent to violent craine.

    • this is a different LEVEL of crime. guns ARE a deterrent to crime. read the article about the guy who bought a knife turned around with his just purchased knife and started KNIFING PEOPLE right there in the store.

      an armed citizen stopped him without firing a single shot. if the citizen was not armed he would have had to come to grips with the crazy man. what if he was not strong enough?

      • i agree that guns are a deterrent, just that the argument presented in this article undermines that notion.

  13. on the flip side, it also shows how in a guerrilla situation, a handgun, much like the liberator pistol of WW2 fame, is a perfectly acceptable weapon for acquiring larger and more effective weaponry.

  14. Its pretty hard to get through to those in la la land. Hopefully the bradys will come up with an “I’m disarmed & proud of it sign to display on their shirts”, that should thin the ranks some. I think we just have to wait em out, there’s less of them every day,lol, Randy

  15. These guys killed and crippled more people with their bombs than they did with their guns. Evil finds a way. Hindering the lawful does nothing but make it easier for the evil.

    Since she has to sacrifice a virgin every 100 years to stay alive you would think difi would know enough about evil to understand this. Oh wait, she does.

  16. In Brazil, a heavily gun controlled country, a common practice is for criminals to get guns from corrupt police. The officers get extra money, the gangs get armed, and everyone goes home happy. Except the regular people, of course. They have to be defenseless.

    • They can’t Jason. But if they push hard enough in their attempts it will cost a lot of lives and sufferings amongst those caught in the crossfire.

    • Precisely.

      Hunters without ARs will simply snipe any incoming patrols, recover the weapons, and disappear.

      Just wait until the flash mob crowd decides to move from Apple stores to armories or closed gun stores. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

  17. The Economist, Steven Levitt, who Co-Authored “Freakonomics” has stated a truism.

    “When there are financial incentives for people to Cheat … they will try to do it”

    Apparently there was an incentive to steal a gun, or make a straw purchase, file off it’s serial number, and sell it to Tamerlan Tsarnaraev. He didn’t seem to have too much difficulty in finding it.

    Prohibitions always breeds black markets … 68,000 registered guns in NYC, 2,000,000 “illegal Black Market Guns in NYC”

    He apparently had no compunction about assassinating a police officer for his gun either. This is an act by a Perp who believes he is dead already or likely soon to be. Kill a cop, and expect the kind of response that happened in Boston.

    Related article: http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian

  18. Years ago I accidentally left my Nikon camera and my paycheck in my truck, which I had left unlocked (I gave a buddy a ride and he did not lock the door after I had asked him to.)
    When I realized this and went to retrieve them the police were in the parking garage. I got my stuff and asked the local police chief what had happened. Turns out the two vehicles on either side of my truck had been broken into. Mine was untouched. When I asked the police why my vehicle was not bothered, despite being between the two ‘victim’ vehicles he pointed to my NRA bumber sticker and said, “the theives probably were afraid of getting shot.”
    So much for the theory of the NRA bumper sticker luring crooks. More likely it repels them …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *