We just recently had a good discussion about the Mumbai event in
this thread, and this discussion is bringing up even more perspectives around what good CCW actually serves.
It has me thinking that CCW isn't all that sensible. It definitely is advantageous for the carrier as regards protecting himself in isolated incidents, but those arguing that it would have done very little against the Mumbai terrorists have a very good point. I agree with terraformer that a 5-10% CCW rate
might make a difference, but not at the current MA <1% rate. And those arguing that pistols are poor defense against riflemen are right too. So...
Have we fallen for an anti-generated false dichotomy? We argue about the value of carrying versus not carrying, and open carry versus CCW, but is this like arguing about where the Titannic deck chairs should be placed? Maybe we need to rethink the whole "bear arms" concept. Maybe we need to
reframe the discussion and begin thinking about carrying pistols
versus carrying rifles instead.
In the linked thread, Calsdad argued for the importance of militias, and I argued that in order to truly defend against a Mumbai-like attack on American soil required professional security of some sort; but I think we were both stuck in the "pistol paradigm." If we instead get
really old school (or
current-school, as in Israel and many Arab countries) and consider civilians toting around
rifles, then we can actually envision a realistic way in which relatively untrained civilians can pose a serious impediment to serious terrorists.
I think it's worth thinking about. Maybe we need to break out of the fear-fed, anti-imposed "pistol paradigm," and start arguing on our terms - the terms of free men and free women. We all have long guns, but we keep them at home, even though in an event like Mumbai, they are the best defense we can muster. The antis would really prefer that we keep fighting about concealed pistols, and we all know why; they pee their panties whenever they are reminded that this is the real world. Let's not limit ourselves because of someone else's wet underwear.
Exactly.
My big problem with all of these discussions is the absolute inability for most people to think outside the box.
They go back and forth about how a person with a pistol is no match for somebody with a rifle - as if that is true in EVERY situation, and as if it really has any relevance to the discussion.
The part that I hate worst of all when I see people on a gun oriented website such as NES making arguments about how CCW would have no effect in a situation like Mumbai (besides the argument coming from lack of real world knowledge) - is the fact that YOU as a gun owner are essentially arguing for the opposition - you are in essence giving ammunition to those who would like to take all the guns away from civilians.
That is the part that makes these arguments especially pathetic and tiresome in my book - that they are coming from people who are in basically cutting their own throats ( and cutting mine by the way - which is something I REALLY don't appreciate).
Here is one person's perspective on what "good" a handgun can do:
http://billstclair.com/blog/stories/handgun.html
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army.....?
Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 2003-06-18 06:50.
by Mike Vanderboegh
[from stanleyscoop]
A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed: "If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)" If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, once told me:
"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic."
Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question. Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.
.................
READ THE REST AT THE LINK
It's pretty obvious from the responses in this thread (and some of the others that have cropped up on NES recently) ..... is that there is a complete lack of will. And that is the real problem.
But since we are in the mode of arguing minutia, lets argue some:
- so you are trapped in a hotel room in Mumbai, you hear the terrorists running thru the halls, ,knocking on doors - and shooting defenseless "citizens" down. You look out the window and see the police cowering behind lampposts - and lobbing grenades thru the hotel windows, trying to take out the terrorists. Since I fail to see how being WITHOUT a handgun in this circumstance would be a GOOD thing - somebody please inform me. Discuss.
- You are running down an alley with a full size pistol in your hand - trying to escape the terrorists who are essentially roaming free-range around the city, you are coming down an alley, and as you turn the corner you come across a terrorist changing mags on his AK, Once again, since I fail to see how being WITHOUT a handgun in this instance would be a GOOD thing - somebody please inform me. Discuss.
Sure - if you were standing in the middle of that train station - and the terrorists came running thru the door gunning people down with full-auto fire - then you are probably dead. Having a pistol - or a rifle, with you is not going to make any difference. But then again - neither is having police "protection" - because they will probably be the first people gunned down.
I however DON'T think those who say that CCW would have done something against the Mumbai terrorists have a good point. You cannot possibly determine whether a pistol would be useless in each and every little circumstance that these people were caught in.
Again I will repeat: When you go down this road you are using the same line of reasoning that the anti-gunners use to say we should not have the right to own or use firearms. You ought to seriously think about what it is that you are advocating.
Until people have a vast change of philosophy all of these problems will continue. What has essentially happened is the whole argument about whether we as civilians even have the right to defend ourselves at all has become obfuscated with so many layers of bullshit that most people can't make heads or tails of the whole situation. Including a good portion of people in this thread.
Just for the record: I am not stuck in a "pistol paridigm". The 2nd amendment does not make a reference to pistols or rifles. The philosophical underpinnings of the 2nd amendment are that you as a free sovereign individual are free to defend yourself as you see fit. Assuming that the philosophy behind the 2nd amendment - or digging deeper - the concept of the natural right of self defense - is somehow an argument between pistols and rifles - is just obfuscation and BS in my book.
Stop thinking of the problem as a pistol vs. rifle problem. Start thinking of the issue as a " why are we as a people so ignorant that they can't see the benefit's of defending themselves" problem. Once you recognize the true nature of the problem - and accept the solution - then you can debate the proper tools to use for the job and the proper training you should seek. This is where the militia's would come in. If you go into any given town I am sure you could come across LOTS of people who belong to the local Rotary Club, or the Elks, or the local sports leagues, bowling leagues, etc. Chances are each of these people has spent countless hours playing around with their hobby, shooting the breeze behind the bar down at the local club, etc. The point of a "militia" is that there should be an institution whereby regular citizens learn how to defend themselves.
This is how it used to be. The new paradigm you speak of is not new at all. It would be a return to the mentality that made this country. Instead of spending your weekends drinking beer with the guys down at the Elks, you would be down at the local parade ground running drills - or at the local range keeping up your skills, or taking classes on how to handle situations - like Mumbai. These are what the term "well regulated" mean when applied to the militia. But nobody nowadays wants to do that - the feel like they pay their taxes and they should get police protection. The reality that should creep into their head every time something like Mumbai happens (that the police WON'T protect you) never registers. All they hear is LALALLALA in their head as they write a scathing email off to their congressman about how this is outrageous that we aren't protected. So your congressman votes on the latest multi trillion dollar appropriation for Homeland Security, gives some good speeches about the how the problem is all solved. The rubes are all placated - they go back to the football games and beer - and the next time a Mumbai type incident happens - they wonder why they weren't protected.
Rinse - wash - repeat.
The truly ambitious people actually get online and argue why guns wouldn't have protected us during the terrorist attack - and then spend countless hours online arguing about why their congressman is trying to take their guns away. They never see the connection.