What if: Terrorists vs Armed US civilians

With the whole right to bear arms thing [US Constitution etc]...let's say terrorists attacked, right? I always wondered this: Say some civilians are carrying when an attack happens, and they decide to defend the unarmed civilians against IS, whomever...

Do the cops/army turn up and start taking out civilians because they can't tell who's who? Because I always wondered that. And I always thought that made the gun thing possibly a moot point if you get my meaning. 👍

NOTE; I actually love the idea of people doing this to protect other human beings, it's kind of beautiful. I just wonder if all hell wouldn't break loose for whatever reason. I also would like to believe this could be an example of facial recognition used for a GOOD purpose by perhaps pre-empting - and therefore avoiding - shooting domestic, armed protectors from external terrorist types. You have to believe that they have discussed this as a possible scenario in Counter-Terrorism circles, right? [i]Right...?[/i]

[b]EDIT:[/b] Thanks for the downvote, pal! Whoever you are. 👠👠 Some choice footwear for you. My way of saying thanks.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

Mressage from a country that has suffered from terrorists but very, very rarely random mass-shootings for no obvious motive:

Although the security people can pick up clues to the risk an individual poses, and they have stopped many planned attacks; you cannot distinguish a terrorist from anyone else, and you cannot always tell in advance if any individual is going to do anything dreadful. That is particularly so if the attacker is acting alone, as many are. They don't go round identifying themselves to all and sundry!

Killing wildlife for a hobby or food is one thing. That is shooting in controlled conditions in open countryside and at fairly long range, at eaily-identified, unsuspecting so slow-moving animals, that as Asisficair points out, can't shoot back.

Trying to take your hunting rifles or even hand-guns into a crowded city street as an armed vigilante thinking you can head off a terrorist attack in a crowded city street, is quite another. You do not know who the attacker is, nor how and where he will strike, until he has done it; and you do not know whom you might shoot with the rounds that miss him.

It'd hard enough for the Police even if they have been warned an attack is imminent, somewhere on some day soon. Leave it to them, not gung-ho big-game hunters.

It's also better to catch the terrorist alive as then you have more chance of understanding the motives of such people, and more chance of tracing his fellows-in-crime; to improve the chances of reducing the risks of future terrorist attacks.

That and making him face up to what he's done and what sort of person he is.

SW-User

@ArishMell All very well observed and articulated. The crowd safety was one of my initial considerations but again didn't want to bog my OP down with too much. But this was definitely one of the things on my mind; once that crowd panics - and they will - that's possibly it for many of them. Some will get crushed under a stampede of panicked civilians.

Also the point about capturing the attacker/s alive for information and understanding. I also consider this part of a more progressive society where we can perhaps cut off terrorism at the root before it truly begins to take hold of a person's psyche. Naive perhaps but you have to at least give it a go. Maybe one day.

If you at least show your enemy some respect and show them you understand where they are coming from - some of these people are likely victims themselves. It's a horrible thing and doesn't excuse anything [much like governments do inexcusable things imho].

But it also gives the families of victims a chance to confront the person or persons responsible.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@SW-User Thank you! There is a scheme in the UK designed to engage disaffected young men (usually men) at risk of being drawn into extremism and terrorism and talking them out of it. I don't know how successful it has been but if it has persuaded only a few it's something.

SW-User

@ArishMell I have wanted for a while to volunteer for something like that as I have good skills handling irate people and such. I'd rather do that or talk down jumpers than try the Samaritans thing where you might be responding to a wind-up.

might google for that later - let me know if you have a link for a site for that. have a good Friday night. ✌️