Gun Control Advocates: ‘Guns Would’ve Made London Attack Worse’

After the most recent London terrorist attack, President Trump unleashed an unedited/enigmatic Tweet: “Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!” TTAG readers are busy parsing that in our Quote of the Day. Meanwhile, the civilian disarmament industrial complex is making the same argument they always make whenever a knife attack occurs. David Frum at atlantic.com:

On a pleasant summer evening, tens of thousands of Londoners walk through or enjoy themselves in the neighborhood the terrorists attacked. Three men armed with high-capacity firearms would not have killed seven and wounded 48: They would have killed hundreds or even more. British police could use their firepower advantage to kill the three terrorists in eight minutes. Had the terrorists been equally armed, who knows what the outcome of the gun battle might have been?

Whenever there’s a knife attack abroad Mr. Frum and his ilk cry “knife beats gun!” Seven dead instead of hundreds! See? Eliminating “easy access to guns” through gun control limits the bad guys’ arsenal. So suck it up, unarmed Brits. Be glad you don’t live in the United States. And get smart America! British gun control here please. Well, most of it . . .

Americans would not tolerate British-style rules [on gun ownership], nor perhaps should they. But it’s utterly far-fetched to argue—as President Trump seems to be arguing—that Britain would be more safe from terrorism if the London Bridge killers could have obtained an American-style arsenal, or if the targets of the attack had carried weapons of their own, filling the crowded space with hundreds of rounds of panicky return fire.

Wait. What? While the President’s tweet was less than entirely clear, who in their right mind thinks Donald Trump believes that “Britain would be more safe from terrorism if the London Bridge killers could have obtained an American-style arsenal”? While Mr. Frum has clearly lost the plot (however intentionally), his second assertion is civilian disarmament SOP. Civilians can’t have guns because they’ll shoot each other!

Yes, well, America is home to tens of thousands of defensive gun uses per year. You can round down the number of innocent bystanders wounded or killed during these incidents to zero. So when does the theoretical safety of the many outweigh the proven efficacy of the natural individual right to armed self-defense? When you’re a Brit. Or David Frum.

You and I see a terror or other criminal attack and think of one individual facing a threat of grievous bodily harm or death. We wish they’d been able to mount a successful counterattack by force of arms. To stop the carnage.

Gun control advocates — propagandists who normally wave the bloody shirt with gay abandon — suddenly fixate on the greater good. They wish the state had more power: more government agents (i.e. police) and less individual liberty (i.e. gun control, surveillance, online censorship).

No attack — gun, knife, bomb, poison gas — will sway the antis towards personal responsibility/self-defense. They see any slaughter as proof of the need to exert control over the general public. Nothing could be further from the truth.

comments

  1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Well, duh. Of course guns would’ve made it worse. Someone might have shot one of those poor misunderstood young men.

    1. avatar Texheim says:

      violating their right to a fair trial

      1. avatar Sian says:

        It’s infuriating that some statist antis actually use this argument.

        Like their totally legitimate right to a fair trial outweighs an armed bystander’s right to not be murdered.

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          The saddest part is that there are people , ‘ LOT’S OF PEOPLE ‘ , who cannot see the illogical position of these type of arguments and will spread it as being smart reasoning .
          The point here is that a couple guys with knives can do this much damage in an area where police are actually located .
          If the citizenry were allowed to be armed , the terrorist would not even bother to show up with knives . If the citizenry were allowed to be armed and the terrorist showed up with guns , the fight could at least be fair and balanced .

    2. avatar Hank says:

      It’s a pity those London constables had to resort to “gun violence™” to stop those murdering beasts.

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      Nice. Very first post and beat me to it.

      Gun Control Advocates: ‘Guns Would’ve Made London Attack Worse’

      If pedestrians were carrying, they could have better defended themselves. If the “I-need-72-virgins-right-away-guys” knew that pedestrians were armed, they likely wouldn’t have tried to run them over with trucks or try to stab them with knives or try to shoot at them if they themselves were armed. Instead, innocent people were massacred waiting for the “authorities” to arrive, who obviously couldn’t protect them.

      The solution is obvious. Protect yourself.

  2. avatar Norincojay says:

    Bombs would have been the most worstest of all bigly. Thankfully they weren’t used.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      Apparently dismembering little girls with bombs, running people down with vehicles, stabbing or hacking them with pointy edged weapons are all tolerable expressions of religious zeal. It’s only when guns are used that it’s a problem.

      1. avatar The Duke says:

        Dont you know? All those things are just part of life in the big city!

        Apparently the cities I’ve lived in are the exception

      2. avatar viper says:

        F’n a cotton…….I carry a pistol, 2 back up mags on my belt…..my AR is in the vehicle with me….with 3 loaded mags and 120 xtra rounds for back up…….and I live in Montana!!

        1. avatar Klause Von Schmitto says:

          That is almost precisely my load out in Tampa. Now I think I may be under gunned if that’s what you do in the Big Sky.

    2. avatar Bob H says:

      You know trump says “Big League” not “Bigly” right?

      1. avatar Bob says:

        Bingo

  3. avatar Geoff PR says:

    London has a fair-sized Muslim population.

    It’s quite conceivable a good-guy armed Muslim responding would have been terminated with prejudice by responding LE.

    Imagine the pucker-factor of the people of ME decent in that crowd in London…

    1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

      Imagine the odds that one of them would know the attacker.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Well, duh, of course it’s conceivable. You just conceived of it. The question is whether it’s significant and relevant.

      As it turns out, an unarmed bystander was reportedly shot by London police. So you aren’t necessarily safe just because you’re unarmed. In the U.S., shootings of bystanders by police are not unheard of. Shootings of good guys with guns who have just ended a a killer’s spree? Never heard of that.

      I’d rather take my chances against some conceivable friendly fire later on, which I can act to prevent, than go unarmed against multiple blade wielding attackers right now, when I have no serious alternatives.

    3. avatar Sian says:

      I’ll start worrying about responding armed citizens getting gunned down by responding authorities as soon as it ever happens. So far, it never has, because police response never happens until minutes after the shooting is over.

      So until then, carry on.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        You’re more likely to get shot by police illegally breaking into your home.

  4. avatar Dan l says:

    They didnt use guns? Then it was the internets, those series of tubes did it. Ban that, is what i heard them say

  5. avatar ColdNorth says:

    Another aspect that is overlooked is how the various bargoers used whatever was at hand to defend themselves- bottles, chairs, etc.

    That’s all well and good, but keep this in mind- in places like the UK, Australia, Canada, etc., you can use whatever is at hand to defend yourself, but don’t announce that in advance. You could find yourself up on a charge because you showed intent to use your bottle/textbook/chair leg as a weapon.

    Here’s an example from Australia:
    ” A bottle, a stick, a closed pocket knife or even a baseball bat might be an offensive weapon if the person carrying it wants to use it as such or cannot establish an innocent reason for having it [see Verdiglione v Police[2007] SASC 349].”

    1. avatar Hank says:

      One of my favorite scenes in Monty Python’s “Holy Grail” is when a British cop confiscates a wooden shield from one of the knights declaring “That there’s an OFFENSIVE weapon.”

  6. avatar DrRazorback says:

    Like clockwork.

    “filling the crowded space with hundreds of rounds of panicky return fire.”

    I’m so tired of this particular trope. Yes, any and all gun owners/carriers (I know there are none in GB but they use the same line every time here) are hopelessly nervous and crappy at gun handling. I tend to look at this as projection for the bed wetting antis. I don’t think they can conceive of people who’s response to a scary situation is cautious assessment and then decisive action.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      IMHO, you’re correct: It’s projection.
      Many people (think those who don’t use turn signals) can’t imagine others acting any way except how they would act. Their ignorance is, in their eyes, the ignorance of everyone else.

  7. avatar fiun dagner says:

    I’m surprised nobody has pointed out that Britain has Universal background checks on knives. And it doesn’t seem to have done a darn thing to stop this attack

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      Not to mention it’s the most surveilled place on earth. Those cameras came in REAL handy.

    2. avatar Kaban says:

      >>“knife beats gun!”

      They somehow neglect to mention that it was KNIFE attack in f*cking Great Britain, The country of absurd knife regulations. IIRC, knife manufacturers, Spyderco included, produce specially castrated…sorry, modified folders for British customers.

      And of course those regulations save hundreds of lives daily…just not this time /sarc.

  8. avatar GRA says:

    Guns in the hands of private citizens could’ve easily reduced the carnage. Only a fool would try to argue otherwise. We’ve already seen that the gun control movement is all about domination by power and control. These are ignorant and pathetic people that advocate any form of gun control.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Hey, in this case we can even pyss on the private citizen! How about the brave young Bobby took the killers on with just a billy club, in hospital for his efforts with stab wounds, couldn’t we have at least armed HIM? It would have been OVER, just like that numbskull in US rammed a crowd then jumped out with a knife, and was returned to ambient temperature in seconds by a cop who happened to be there. But even that is invisible there.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      One good guy with a gun . . . The US probably has a higher percentage of private citizens with military experience than at any time since WWII. Effectively, given our large number of veterans and an exponentially expanding population of armed citizens. we are not all that far away from being an armed camp. It’s not conjecture to suggest that a time is coming where a terrorist attack on a crowded urban center will be confronted by multiple armed private citizens.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        Except that here in the US, we have “Designated Target-Rich Zones” (AKA “Gun Free Zones”) that seem to attract killers like garbage attracts flies.
        Nothing like telling the killers “Here be No Guns!”

  9. avatar RetMSgt in Pa. says:

    The British Way: Run, Hide, Cower

    The American Way: Draw, Aim, Shoot

  10. avatar Kaban says:

    >>“knife beats gun!”

    They somehow neglect to mention that it was KNIFE attack in f*cking Great Britain, The country of absurd knife regulations. IIRC, knife manufacturers, Spyderco included, produce specially castrated…sorry, modified folders for British customers.

    And of course those regulations save hundreds of lives daily…just not this time /sarc.

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    Maybe using another vehicle to ram the van.
    But that would be considered an offensive offence in the UK

  12. avatar John says:

    Fine. Let them go die like good little British subjects.

    1. avatar . says:

      He gasped his last breath, then exhaled it softly, whispering, “…for England!” as his glassy eyes went still.

      1. avatar The Brig says:

        “Oh, what a lucky man…he was!”

  13. avatar Hannibal says:

    Gun beats knife.

    Medium-large vehicle beats gun.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      Minigun or Barrett .50 cal beats medium-large vehicle?

      Rock smashes scissors
      Scissors cut paper
      Paper covers rock

      What’s your point?

      People with Glocks or even J-frame revolvers could have stopped the rampaging guys with knives even if they probably couldn’t have stopped the vehicle.

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    Whenever someone talks about silliness like the panicked return fire here I think of William Dafoe on his knees screaming “There was a FIREFIGHT!!!!”.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      willem.

    2. avatar cmac890 says:

      Again, why is there no upvote system here?

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        +1

  15. avatar Alexander says:

    The mayor of Londonstan said that there is no connection to Islam. The news organization showing pictures of, unfortunately, killed young man identified him as wearing camouflage pants, with a beard and appearing to be of Mediterranean origin… Now it is clear that guns would have made everything worse. Maybe there was no attack at all? Maybe it was a new attraction in the newly opened Walt Disney World Hijab Pavilion?

    1. avatar The Duke says:

      Then ISIS claimed responsibility, still we can’t assume that the attackers were connected to Islam. That would be offensive and that is illegal in Britain

  16. avatar BLAMMO says:

    … While Mr. Frum has clearly lost the plot (however intentionally), his second assertion is civilian disarmament SOP. Civilians can’t have guns because they’ll shoot each other!

    It seems the local constabulary managed it on their own.

    http://nypost.com/2017/06/05/american-shot-in-the-head-during-london-terror-attack/

    I’m not blaming them. Shit happens.

  17. avatar Swarf says:

    I get shit for not toeing the line on a lot of issues around here, but I completely agree with the article. Tossing a pint glass at the murderous bastards is well and good, but shooting would have saved innocent lives and stopped more knifings.

    If the British want to be Great again, they would do well to start demanding their right to armed self defense back.

    I’m looking at you, too, France.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      The British generally don’t want to be great again.

      Obviously, the French don’t either. Look at the guy they just elected as President. What kind of man marries a woman 24 years older than him? The little wimp looks like he married his mom.

      What kind of country thinks that sort of man makes a quality leader?

      1. avatar Art out West says:

        Not only is Macron’s wife an old hag, but she is also an adulterous whore. She was carrying on an adulterous relationship with Macron while still married to her first husband. She may also be a child molester. She was Macron’s school teacher (though I don’t know at what age their relationship began).

      2. avatar JP says:

        What kind of country thinks that Trump makes a quality leader?
        Imagine if Trump was black, had married three times and was currently married to a gold digging immigrant that barely spoke english.
        What had you accomplished by 39?
        I’m guessing less than 1% of Macron.

        1. avatar Art out West says:

          “What had you accomplished by 39? I’m guessing less than 1% of Macron.”

          I had to laugh at your sad little retort. If nothing else, by age 39, I married a cute young virtuous virgin (still happily married 18 years later). That alone puts me light years ahead of Macron. I also earned a doctorate in the sciences, and paid off my home mortgage.

          I’m not a grasping little globalist eunuch like Macron, born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I’m just an average middle class, gun owning, liberty loving, American. I am certainly not qualified to lead a country, and never suggested that I was.

          FWIW, I’m not a big Trump fan (nor a big fan of Melania). Your comment on her English however is pathetic. Yes, she has a bit of an accent, but she speaks English quite well (plus foreign accents generally make women more attractive in my opinion).

          She speaks four or five languages. How many do you speak?

  18. avatar 2aguy says:

    A quick question…..are explosives used for suicide vests illegal in Britain? The only reason I ask is that it seems as if the guy who murdered little girls with a suicide vest was able to get hands on a bunch of explosives….so can the anti gunners explain how ….if he could get explosives…..how britain would stop them from getting guns?

    And another point…..gun crime in London is up 42% last year….from British stats…….it seems to me that criminals are getting guns despite the ban and confiscation that happened in 1996…….

  19. avatar H says:

    This is my Glock assault bottle in 9mm. It is a hollow point. Just in case things get dicey I have the Barrett .50 chair.

    They think an 8 min response time is great. The woman said what would an armed person do? There were three attackers! Hmmm let’s give you say generously 30 sec per shot (!) it’s over in 90 seconds. How many pints have we finished waiting for the bobbies?
    Leave out that dumb @$$s don’t start stuff where they can get hurt.

  20. avatar Joe R. says:

    Trump’s admonition was for them.

    I think we settled-up about 200 + years ago on whether ANYTHING in the U.K. interferes with our rights, or discussion thereon.

  21. avatar Libertarian says:

    Hypocrites need a queen and big goverment 🙁
    And not forget an surveillance state white key disclosure law

  22. avatar David N says:

    We forget that most defensive gun use goes undetected. Does anyone believe that a a group of knife-wielding agitators would try this in Plano, Texas?

    Even a small, (but significant), percentage of the population carrying a concealed weapon presents a significant deterrent to this sort of thing. Not too many people hold up grocery stores in Phoenix. (I have never been in one where I didn’t see a least a few people carrying openly.

  23. avatar samuraichatter says:

    Is everybody on crazy pills?!

    Europe has had terrorist attacks with guns. I do remember something about Muhammad and cartoons. When those attacks happen there is always some excuse – just like here. It is a whole mindset at work. The desire for stability and safety has made Europeans weak and an easy target.

    But lets just call it what it is. Japan has all kinds of arms control (not just guns) and we just don’t see this kind of thing there. Why? Not many Muslims.

  24. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

    Good guys with guns stopped the bad guys with knives. Why is this so hard for leftists to understand? I would trust the people on TTAG way more than the average New York city (or London) policeman in dealing with crazed Jihadists..
    What this violence actually show is the sickness that western culture is living with. In a postmodern western secular world view where everything is subjective, who is to say that what the terrorists did is wrong? The left can’t answer that question because they can’t judge anything that might upset their holy grail of diversity and tolerance. The breakdown of the family and morals beginning in the 1960s is what is leading to the sad state of the west. America is right behind the Brits. If you want to do something about this be a good person who teaches their children about good and evil and right and wrong. Don’t hide the realities of life from them and finally carry everyday.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Agree with “”Joseph Quixote””.

      If America is not truly watchful, we are right behind the UK in regards to this.

  25. avatar Aaron says:

    If guns would have made things worse, why did they call in coppers with guns to respond???

  26. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    David Frum is a slave born in Canada. He is a subject, not a free man. I think he has been only an American citizen for 15 years now. But he is still in his mind a subject of the British Empire.
    I would ask any person who became a citizen be asked if they support the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill Of Rights??

    Or did they come here just for the money????

  27. avatar Darkman says:

    I’m going to make a prediction here based on a very early news report I heard just after this attack happened. It was reported only one time by the BBC that one of the first people attacked in the market area was a police officer. My prediction is that police officer was unarmed and unable to stop the attacker. Most police officers in Great Britain are not allowed to carry firearms. Now the story is they were able to stop the terrorist within 8 minutes of the first 999 call. Yes I know having a gun may not have made a difference. When your attacker knows they are working in a Gun Free Zone it certainly makes their job a lot less complicated. I’m reasonably sure they took this into account and attacked as many people as fast as they could knowing that eventually armed officers would Eventually show up. When your enemy knows these kinds of facts you’ve already lost the first battle. The first battle is the only one they need or plan to win.

    1. avatar GRA says:

      Up until about a year ago I was in and out of GB (London) and Western Europe about once a month. I have spoken to Bobbies about being armed. More than once and more than one has told me that they would rather resign than wear a weapon. They were very serious about this.

      In France, the cops have the “option” of being armed.

      Most other countries in Europe at minimum arm their cops. You would think a nation that has suffered IRA attacks for years would’ve learned better a long time ago but obviously their old attitudes have won out.

      If the Brits maintain this unprofessional attitude towards policing with firearms I cannot afford them any sympathy whatsoever when they get hit and suffer these losses under such circumstances. They are their own worst enemy so let them suffer the hard lessons they are destined to suffer.

  28. avatar Sabrina M Gray says:

    I got into a FB argument with a friend of a friend, at first it was civil, and that it really went down hill from there. One of the big things was “Well how do you know your not a killer”, to which I replied, that’s what our justice system is for. Then this morning the incident in Orlando happened, they tried to throw that in my face, my response was basically how many people were killed by a non-firearm related manner, than I got called a chest thumping ‘merican, to which I responded that the right of self defense is as natural as breathing.

  29. avatar Shose says:

    No one wants to be a defenseless victim with just a pint of beer and their d*ick in their hand

  30. avatar Klause Von Schmitto says:

    The state of Great Britain today somehow makes me think that my great uncle at the bottom of the English Channel since 1940 is having a good chuckle.

  31. avatar TommyJay says:

    Eight minutes to stop an attack in the middle of London is an eternity. Near victims running from the scene encountered bobbies running in the wrong direction. “Hey dumb ass, the bad guys are in the other direction.”

    I was in Times Square a couple months ago, and saw a young male acting nutty who was then grabbed and thrown over the hood of a cop car in 20 sec. flat.

  32. avatar Angry D says:

    “Whenever there’s a knife attack abroad Mr. Frum and his ilk cry “knife beats gun!” Seven dead instead of hundreds! See? Eliminating “easy access to guns” through gun control limits the bad guys’ arsenal. So suck it up, unarmed Brits. Be glad you don’t live in the United States. And get smart America! British gun control here please. Well, most of it . . .”

    To further frost that cake of stupidity, let’s ignore the Beijing Terror attack of 2013 where nine attackers killed 108 and injured 57.

    With knives.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email