Monday, 16 February 2015

We must all be prepared to kill 'lone wolf' Jihadis

I have posted previously that there is no defence, no warning, against the beserker attacks of lone-wolf Jihadis. The police and security services are rightly working to intercept and prevent the sort of organised terrorist attacks that targets an aircraft or a transport hub full of innocents. Our only defences against the sick scum of ad-hoc Islamists are police on the street, our own vigilance and our willingness to kill these mad dogs in self-defence as soon as their lethal intentions are made clear. 

As they lie choking in their own blood in the gutter like this nobody from Denmark, and even if they manage to kill one or two of us first, they will all end their sad, pointless lives as failures, losers and trash on the street to be cleared away. Our nation and our society will go on in Freedom and Right.


Rush is Right said...

You missed the chance to put in a spot of alliteration there Radders.... I like the sound of "The No-Mark from Denmark".

More seriously, I applaud your sentiments, but I've a nasty feeling that our institutionally-corrupt Plod and the right-on scum in the office of Public Prosecutions won't see things in the same way.

G. Tingey said...

There is now re-established precedent, that, if threatened with a knife ( & even more so with a gun ) then any "injury" to the perpetrator is bought & paid for.

This came about after 2 or 3 shopkeepers were threatened by robbers & Plod arrested said defenders of their own property ... "words" were then had inside the judicial system about this & IIRC there was a public statement about proper self-defence - things have moved on, I'm glad to say.

DeeDee99 said...

All very well Raedwald, but what do we kill them with.

The Government has seen to it that law-abiding Brits are unarmed and vulnerable.

We tend to be a peaceful population and we are not used to seeing atrocities taking place on our own streets, so reactions are slow.

We are effectively defenceless against the brainwashed lone jihadis - and that is just how our Government wants it. A fearful population is more easily controlled.

Malcolm Stevas said...

I don't understand G.Tingey's words, which are a bit garbled. But the key point is that if you injure or kill someone in self-defence, as things are you end up in court on exactly the same basis as a common criminal, having to demonstrate convincingly that you were in the right. Fail, and you end up in jail.
Even more to the point, good intentions are lovely, but it was in the mid-1950s that by administrative fiat (not Parliamentary decision) Chief Constables stopped issuing Firearm Certificates with "self defence" as the "good reason" for acquiring a firearm. The Establishment does not want you & I to have the capacity to defend ourselves credibly. Anyone faced by a "jihadi" or any other sort of criminal nut-job with a gun or explosives either needs to have exceptional martial-arts skills and/or be very lucky. You're on your own. Fight back or not – you'll probably die. If you win you'll go to court – possibly to prison as well, especially if you'd defended yourself with a lawfully-owned (for sport, or target shooting) gun or, heaven forfend, an off-ticket weapon.
So, nice sentiments, Raedwald, but they really, really don't like us fighting back. We're screwed.

Raedwald said...

Greg was referring to the detailed guidance issued by the Crown Prosecution Service on self defence - available at

If a Jihadi is clearly about to commit murder, it is quite lawful to use whatever force - including lethal violence if necessary - to prevent this or any further Islamist acts

And you don't need a pistol or commando training. I believe many Councils run self-defence training for women that makes this point quite well.

Liberista said...

self-defence training is no match to a AK47, i am afraid.
i fully agree that we must be ready and able to kill these criminals on sight, but this need firearms and practice.
that this is done legally or not is completely irrelevant.
until this is understood by at least a sizeable chunk of the population, we will just all be targets.
all those who managed to take a pic of vid of the Paris assassins would have been able to take them out or at least make their life difficult, if instead of a camera they had at least a handgun.

Malcolm Stevas said...

" don't need a pistol or commando training. I believe many Councils run self-defence training for women that makes this point quite well."
I'd bet a large sum that those council-run courses do not envisage women having to fight off people armed with explosives or automatic weapons - or any kind of firearm...
You don't need a gun of some sort (preferably a decent variety of 1911 semi-auto filled with a hot load of hollowpoints), or martial arts skills - really? I'd love to know your qualifications for asserting this, Raedwald! Until HMG decided to screw us in 1997 I put thousands of rounds through handguns: I know how difficult it is to use a handgun consistently accuratelym but I would very much prefer to be armed when facing an armed "jihadi" or whatever. James Bond might be able to seize a heavy ashtray and hurl it accurately, or deploy the laser weapon stashed in his wristwatch, but most of us, if unarmed, would be helpless to resist if faced by the muzzle of a gun.
I suggest you've watched too many Bruce Lee movies.

Flyinthesky said...

These situations always remind me of the Gary Newlove case, he posthumously became a national hero after tackling thugs outside his house.
My contention is if he had prevailed and unfortunately killed one of them he would now be in prison and declared a national pariah.
Self defence seems to work on the guilty till proved innocent principle.

Anonymous said...

Just an observation regarding the "arming" of one's self; you'd be surprised at the power of some of the modern air guns on the legitimate market nowadays.
A pellet from one of these in a Jihadi's face might not incapacitate him but ...

G. Tingey said...

Flyinthesky & M Stevas
You might have been correct 4 or 5 years ago, but, as I said & Raedwald has pointed out, things have changed, for the better.
And about time too, I might add ....

Malcolm Stevas said...

Flyinthesky: remember Tony Martin, who should have received a medal for vermin control instead of being banged up in clink.
Anonymous: are you serious? If you're going to pull a gun on an armed criminal, it had better be able to kill or inapacitate him pronto, otherwise you'll just prompt him to shoot you more quickly... Further, carrying (or just having ready to hand) even an air pistol would expose you to being charged with carrying an offensive weapon. People have been done for far less, including having to hand a heavy Maglite torch or similar.
G.Tingey: I would far rather it was you, and not me, acting as guinea pig for the suggestion that "they" are far more relaxed than hitherto about self-defence... If you're lucky enough to get off (after the harrowing, expensive, traumatic experience of defending your actions in court) on charges of assault, you might very well find yourself on charges to do with carrying an offensive weapon - see above. Don't be so sanguine: the Establishment, and their tools the Plods, really, really don't like the peasantry having weapons or fighting back.

Anonymous said...

I thought it was becoming an offence to say that there are such people as jihadis. To say that we should do anything to counter them must make one a very extreme extremist in Mrs. May's eyes.

Mr Ecks said...

Malcolm Steavas calls it. The population have been disarmed for the states reasons--a brave, belligerent and well-armed population that won't take any shit from criminal and Jihadi scum --also just might decide not to take any more shit from the political/bureaucratic scum who imported the Jihadis in the first place.

Also Raedwald your ideas on self-defence vs guns suggest a lack of realism. Look up some of the best experts on self defence--Rory Miller/ Mas Ayoob/Bradley J Steiner. These men will tell you that an unarmed man trying to take on a gunman is a last-ditch you-are-going-to-die-anyway-so-what-the-hell proposition.

The polits don't give a crap if you and yours are wasted by Jihadis --so long as they and theirs are fully protected. They'll shed the croc tears and make the mournful noises but they really don't give a shite.

We need guns and concealed carry and proper training. We need a campaign to restore our gun rights. Anybody got any ideas?

Anonymous said...

We do have a general election coming up soon.
So how about each of us write to our sitting MP and the other potentila candidates asking them to support a review of firearms legislation to allow pistols ownership for us?
Replies could be published.
Some one might even see this as a potential vote winning policy.

Anonymous said...

We need to be armed, all law abiding citizens should demand that right and yesterday if possible.

On shooting Jihadis,

Drummer Rigby, you can see how much our lot didn't want to cause reprisals - the killers of Lee Rigby even had their day in court. Which leads to the greater question, just whose side are our authorities on and I really cannot answer that but I don't think that Britons figure in the answer.

Cascadian said...

May I state the obvious?

The Copenhagen cafe attacker shot 200 rounds of ammunition. That is a serious attack. He was a known criminal and there is speculation he may have been a jihadist fresh from Syria. (which leads me to believe that the "authorities" know for certain he is a jihadist but wish to conceal the fact)
The guard at the synagogue was shot in the head, presumably at close range, quite blatant, the gunman knew he would be unarmed and vulnerable.
Talk of womens self defense course is fatuous in these situations. Knives, tazers, bear spray totally ineffective.
Writing to MP's is worse than useless, a more pampered and gutless class who demand 24 hour security but deny it to the citizenry cannot be relied on.
As most here have pointed out you have been made defenceless quite deliberately by the police. The victims here are "acceptable attrition losses". You will be an acceptable loss come the time.
Politicians are falling over themselves to explain how "everything will be done" to safeguard Jews-too little, too late.
Frankly when jihadists can obtain guns and ammunition with impunity I wonder why normal citizens would not go about arming themselves, the systems in place obviously are not a deterrent. The government and police are overwhelmed by their own ineptitude-you are on your own.

Dave_G said...

Bows and arrows, crossbows and even the slingshot are, as far as I'm aware, the only potentially lethal weapons still 'legal' in this country.

If you want to protect yourself get a crossbow NOW, before they cotton on and ban those too.

Anonymous said...

For you, Tommy, ze war is over.



Anonymous said...

Our Kritsallnacht for Islamists is coming; and the sooner, the better.

Coney Island

Thud said...

Shotguns are legal here and semi autos good for most needs....clays too!

Cascadian said...

An extremely interesting comment on several recent discussions' please watch the embedded video and think how effective your self defense nightschool course would be.

If you doubt the need to arm yourself you just are not paying attention.

meltemian said...

O.K. I know, but it has to be said.

"The only answer to a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun"