Interesting Fox News Article

I just read this article on FoxNews.com and thought this discussion is germane to OC rights and gun rights in general...

Judge rejects bid to stop Olympic rooftop missiles

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/...ics-1378944983/?test=latestnews#ixzz20FLgwlUX
LONDON – A British judge has rejected a bid by residents of a London high- rise to stop having their building used as a missile base during the Olympic Games.
Judge Charles Haddon-Cave said Tuesday that Britain's Ministry of Defense acted legally when it decided to put the weapons atop the Fred Wigg Tower.
Residents of the 17-story tower, about 2 miles (3 kilometers) from the Olympic Park in east London, say the missile battery could make their homes a terrorist target.
But the judge said the missiles presented no real threat.
The building is one of six sites where the British military plans to place missiles as part of security for the July 27-Aug. 12 games.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/...ics-1378944983/?test=latestnews#ixzz20FLIrw96


This article illustrates one important facet about weapons that many are completely mistaken about: weapons do not make you a target! A missile battery atop a London high rise is not attractive to terrorists. In fact, it will... wait for it, wait for it... deter them!!! Oh my goodness!!!

And this is a faulty argument that people who do not understand OC hold on to. My visible handgun makes me less of a target because of the threat to the potential offender's abilities to overcome an unforseen factor and combat a potential victim a device that could easily over-power them.

Of course, coming from the land across the pond who has banned everything up to butter knives (in parliament now), you can expect viable and meaningful security measures to be protested up until and during the Olympics.

And speaking of Olympics, I would like to wish a friend Russell Wolfe good luck during the Para-Olympic Archery Recurve events! (He'll never see this, but it's the thought that counts!)

Have a great day, ladies and fellas!

-Erik aka godspel-13

Some residents of the buildings should steal some of the missiles ... how goofy are the English?

I believe I disagree with your conclusion.

An openly carried handgun is a deterrent to a personal crime because the handgun is an effective weapon that can be used to thwart that crime. The criminal knows that, and selects a victim accordingly.

Anti-aircraft missiles on a roof-top do nothing to thwart a terrorist who is looking to sabotage infrastructure, especially infrastructure which may thwart their efforts in other ways.

I think the residents are absolutely right, putting missiles on their building does attract the attention of terrorists. Missiles would do nothing to thwart an attack on their building by said terrorists, and it is easy to see that attacking such missiles could further the agenda of the terrorist.

There is no cogent comparison to the defensive open carry of a handgun here.

JMHO... And I know I wouldn't want them on top of MY house.

TFred

TFred said:

I believe I disagree with your conclusion.

An openly carried handgun is a deterrent to a personal crime because the handgun is an effective weapon that can be used to thwart that crime. The criminal knows that, and selects a victim accordingly.

Anti-aircraft missiles on a roof-top do nothing to thwart a terrorist who is looking to sabotage infrastructure, especially infrastructure which may thwart their efforts in other ways.

I think the residents are absolutely right, putting missiles on their building does attract the attention of terrorists. Missiles would do nothing to thwart an attack on their building by said terrorists, and it is easy to see that attacking such missiles could further the agenda of the terrorist.

There is no cogent comparison to the defensive open carry of a handgun here.

JMHO... And I know I wouldn't want them on top of MY house.

TFred

Click to expand...

Three days later...

I appreciate your thoughts and opinion. My point was simply to state education of weaponry and its usage. I do see a connection between the two in the broader picture between our two nations in regards to armament. I do understand the concerns of the residents, but I would be an advocate for that if it were my apartment.

I disagree with you in that missiles would thwart an attack on their building, including the surrounding localities. Not only that, it is an effective combatant against improvised explosives, especially that of improvised short distance rockets. You cannot simply be too careful with terrorists who want to watch the world burn.

I look forward to further dialogue with you TFred on all issues.

BTW, I posted the article to try to give us at OCDO something to talk about. No one had posted anything new for a day, so I wanted to contribute to a good read and discussion.

-Erik

godspel-13 said:

Three days later...

I appreciate your thoughts and opinion. My point was simply to state education of weaponry and its usage. I do see a connection between the two in the broader picture between our two nations in regards to armament. I do understand the concerns of the residents, but I would be an advocate for that if it were my apartment.

I disagree with you in that missiles would thwart an attack on their building, including the surrounding localities. Not only that, it is an effective combatant against improvised explosives, especially that of improvised short distance rockets. You cannot simply be too careful with terrorists who want to watch the world burn.

I look forward to further dialogue with you TFred on all issues.

BTW, I posted the article to try to give us at OCDO something to talk about. No one had posted anything new for a day, so I wanted to contribute to a good read and discussion.

-Erik

Click to expand...

I think the OP reads too many novels.

Surface to Air (SAM) batteries have absolutely ZERO chance of doing ANYTHING against IEDs or even "improvised short distance rockets" you mention above. They are very effective against large aircraft like the civilian airliners that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon IF they are employed far enough away from their intended target.

If you want to stop IED's, you need INTEL provided by UAVs, HUMINT, ELINT and COMINT. The only effective counter to "improvised short distance rockets" is "counter-battery fire". Acoustic devices that triangulate the position of a launch and assign artillery to take out the launch site. I've been around a while and have never heard of a "improvised short distance rocket". BG's use old russian rockets that Syrians have been lobbing at Israel for years. They also use mortars pretty effectively.

BTW... I think this article has NOTHING to do with OC.
It should be removed from the board and discarded without further silly commentary...

I agree with TFred. Both that they would attract attention from terrorists if there was an actually terrorist threat, and not in my backyard.