To those of us who take protecting ourselves seriously, the terrorist attack last weekend in London was a perfect illustration of what happens when ordinary citizens are prevented, by law, from effectively defending themselves. Sure, British authorities congratulated themselves on their “rapid response” in “neutralizing” (P.C. speak for “shooting”) the three terrorists in “little more than 8 minutes after the attack began.”
But to victims, 8 minutes is a lifetime. And even worse than watching unarmed Londoners running for their lives was the realization that even after years of such violence, more than 90% of British law enforcement officers are still not allowed to carry firearms. Instead, only after a situation has escalated into chaos do special “Armed Response Units” get called in to deal with the problem.
A couple of years ago, I was at a SHOT Show in Las Vegas where I met a British police officer who was a member of just such a unit in London. After talking about guns and gear for a while, we chatted about the rules under which he and the rest of British police operated. I was shocked to find out that he, like all ARU officers, is required to turn in his firearm at the end of his duty shift! Once “off the clock,” this highly trained professional was just as vulnerable as every other unarmed civilian in the U.K.
Upon hearing this, I pointedly asked him how it felt, knowing that I, an American civilian, could carry a gun pretty much 24/7, while he, a trained law enforcement professional (who utilizes sub-machine guns and rifles on the job), could not even carry a handgun off-duty. He shook his head and admitted that it was “horribly frustrating” and something he simply could not comprehend.
Over the last several decades, efforts have been made to allow British police officers to be armed, but time and again they have been thwarted. Astonishingly, opposition to arming “Bobbies” seems to be based primarily on political correctness.
According to Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, having them carry guns would be “upsetting an equilibrium that has been maintained throughout Britain’s 183-year policing history.” Apparently, maintaining a “civilized” image overrides simple common sense and, more importantly, saving lives.
But there were other lessons from the London attack. We’ve all heard the clueless “journalists” who demand to know why police officers shot an assailant who was “armed with ‘only’ a knife.” In London, just as in Nice, the terrorists used a vehicle to run down their innocent victims, but they then jumped out of the van and attacked people with knives, killing or viciously wounding dozens. This attack should serve as a stark reminder of the enormous damage that “only” knives can do.
Finally, there is a larger lesson here — the phenomenon of “learned helplessness.” I have older friends from Britain, and they lament the gradual decline of the kind of “backbone” that Brits, especially Londoners, used to epitomize. After all, these were the people who refused to surrender, even after nightly bombings during the “Blitz” of World War II.
But according to my friends, with few exceptions, the British people of today have gradually handed over to “the government” not just their right but their duty to protect themselves and their fellow citizens.
We in America should work tirelessly to ensure that this never happens here…
