Foreign and domestic terrorists have one common denominator: they want their attack to succeed. To that end they often spend weeks, months, even years planning their assault. They watch for holes in security learning the patterns of police and security guard patrols and response times. They make plans to avoid metal detectors and other screening procedures. But they cannot prepare for what they cannot see.
One of the biggest threats to a terror attack is a defender they cannot identify. This can be a plainclothes or off-duty law enforcement officer or an armed citizen. One obvious means to counter the possibility of a premature end to an attack is to simply look for a place that bans weapons.
Terrorist experts have warned that future attacks on the United States from abroad may not come from airline hijackings but from smaller attacks on soft targets. For example, on November 28, 2003 Nuradin Abdi was arrested in Kentucky for his part in a plot to attack a shopping mall in Columbus, Ohio. According to court documents, he wanted to bring "death and destruction" to Columbus by staging a mass shooting and/or bombing at a mall. Fortunately the authorities were able to stop the attack.
If they hadn't, surely one part in his plan would have been to select a mall that prohibited civilians from carrying firearms. Terrorists have long ago learned their lesson in that regard. Two stories related by self-defense expert Massaad Ayoob in a Backwoods Home Magazine article demonstrate what can happen if they fail to take armed citizens into account.
Not long ago, a woman in a market in Israel saw a man attempting to activate an explosive device strapped to his body. She drew a concealed pistol and shot him dead before he could trigger the suicide bomb, and in so doing she saved countless innocent people from being killed or mutilated. American newspapers referred to her as a “security” person, but the word I get is that she was simply an ordinary lady…with a gun...
Many years before, a clutch of terrorists opened fire in a public place in Israel. Guns bloomed everywhere from the concealing garments of honest Israeli citizens. In moments, the terrorists were on the ground bleeding from their gunshot wounds, all dead but one. The wounded survivor said indignantly afterward that no one had told them that their victims might be armed and capable of shooting back.
Yesterday, American Thinker posted an article entitled, "Terror at the Mall?". In it, J.R. Dunn examined numerous possible scenarios for a terrorist attack and what can be done to prevent it or minimize casualties. He relates the effect of the "gun free zones" that began springing up in the 90's, more public shootings. Terrorists and criminals alike want to carry out their plans without interference. A "no guns allowed" sign does not stop such attacks it only serves notice to them that it will be easier to succeed.
The United States will be attacked again, we can be sure of that. Whether or not the terror attack succeeds may very well depend on whether or not an armed citizen is there to stop it.
Tomorrow in Part II, we'll take a look at some of the likely ramifications of such an attack.
Comments
I would agree with most of your argument for allowing citizens to defend themselves wherever they go except I would feel much more comfortable if i knew that every citizen carrying a gun knew how to use it and it was a matter of record. I live down the street from a gun store and almost every time I go in to that store I see guns being sold to people who have obviously never held a gun before much less know how to load it. Imagine that person drawing that gun in public and shooting. They are more likely to hit innocent bystanders than the perp. In today's crowded world people need to demonstrate skill and reason when exercising a right because there is a responsibility that goes along with that right. I have no problem with my neighbor owning guns as long as I know he or she can hit the target they are aiming at, namely a perp, and can use good judgement when doing so.
I congratulate Mr. White in writing an article which seems to show the truth. That armed citizens save lives.
To those who would say that "guns only kill" I suggest that a simple look at the facts shows otherwise. More Americans die in auto accidents or medical "mishaps" than from guns. And, studies show that crime increases where guns are restricted or prohibited.
Yes, guns can be used to kill. More often guns are used to defend against a criminals intent upon killing or harming the innocent. In any situation where the choice is between dying at the hands of a criminal or defending oneself with a gun, the criminal cannot be the only one allowed or capable to make that choice.
Concealed weapons save lives.
I wanted to respond to Robert's comment above about qualifications. There is a significant difference between a "gun owner" and "a gun owner with a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW)Permit".
To get a CCW in Ohio:
1. A 12 hr class is required. Including saftey, Law, and actual comptence using the weapon by certified instructors.
2. Application for the permit is caried out thru the local Sheriff's office, including finger printing and a full background check (local, state AND FBI National) before a permit is issued.
There are currently over 140,000 valid CCW permits in the hands of real Ohio law abiding citizens. According to the Law Officers I know, when approuching a traffic stop, they actually find it assuring to hear the person stopped announce they have a valid CCW and are carrying. Officers know they dealing a law abiding citizen (traffic citation not withstanding ;).
Point is, law abiding, prequalified citizens are already around you, properly prepared for selfdefence!
Whether we are talking about terrorists or just the local thug, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get the point that the "bad guys" are going to look for the weakest link or the more likely "easy score".
-for example: coming out of a bank, 250 pound man with a money
envolope in his pocket and both hands free or the little old
lady with her purse over her shoulder?
Remember that in WWII, senior Japanenese leaders quickly shot down plans for a land invasion of the USA because it's citizens were armed, and would fight back.
Likewise, there is a lot of soft target risk in America where ever people gather and to then order the law abiding citizens they are not allowed to carry their firearm here (and we will comply) the bad guys have no honor to comply!
Why do these locations think that is safer?
When seconds count... Police are minutes away.
To Robert: I agree that gun owners should learn to use their weapons safely, but private citizens are not hte only ones needing training. Many LEOs also need training. There was an incident a few years ago in Harker Heights, Tx where an idiot came out of a bar with a gun. Local PD fired 113 shots & only hit him 11 times. Where did the other 102 rounds go? Watch the videos of the big bank shoot-out in LA. See how many rounds hit around & behind the perps. I'm less comfortable with a cop pulling a gun than I am with a CHL holder doing so. We are held to a higher standard, apparently.
Robert, your "comfort" level has no real bearing on this. Other individuals should not be forced to do anything just to increase your comfort. That is exactly the whole purpose of preemptive law, destroying the rights of everyone to satisfy the unfounded fears of others.
I've been an NRA certified firearms instructor for quite a while now. I've watched a large number of people approach their very first gun and shooting experience. To date, ALL of them have been more than cautious, very eager to learn how to use this new tool safely and well - for defense! You can't predict the intentions of people you merely see buying a gun.
And I can pretty well guarantee that I have far more training and consistent range time than most of the "law enforcement" people on the streets.
Robert, I agree with Mama Liberty.
Several years ago I was at a local rifle range with another RSO, and he watched the local Swat sniper put rounds into the "hostage" target.
He asked them politely not to intercede on his behalf if he was ever a hostage.
It's true that many people could use more range time. But I've seen may LEOs who just couldn't cut the mustard. I'll take my chances with the average armed citizen.
Robert,
Thanks for your opinion, but without any references to any statistics, it's just an opinion.
From my experience, most people carrying a gun for protection are aware of the ramifications of doing so, and seem to do OK protecting themselves with a firearm without shooting innocent bystanders.
In most self defense situations, the attacker turns tail and runs at the sight of their intended victim's firearm. Even when the peaceably armed citizen does decide to shoot, they have a higher accuracy rate than police officers in real-life shooting situations.
Are people going to make mistakes? Of course. Does training reduce the likelihood of making those mistakes? Absolutely.
Should training be REQUIRED to carry a gun for self-defense? Hell no. That's discriminatory against people of lower income who can't afford expensive training.
In my opinion, we shouldn't even be required to have a permit/license to carry concealed. We shouldn't have to beg permission to exercise
We shouldn't have to beg permission to exercise an inalienable right. (that got cut off for some reason.)
I'VE CHANGED MY NAME TO OLDGUY PICAPOI. THAT WOULD BE............
POLITICALLY INCORRECT AND PROUD OF IT!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!