"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
...
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.

You shouldn't. Just multiply the civilian death count by an order of
magnitude.
Armed civilians sounds good but hasn't any value in the face of surprise
and a well organized and purposeful enemy.
Under those conditions, civilians would have been shot and killed out of
hand specifically on the chance that they might have been armed.
Whether they actually were wouldn't matter a bit. The perpertrators will
certainly be killed regardless you know.

JC

It's simple. Just shoot anyone who isn't a cop and who is waving or
shooting a gun. You can even get them to form a circular firing squad to
make it more efficient. g

Well no Ed, you just shoot everybody.
I mean, if a bady has resigned himself to death for some cause.
This entire episode has shown a bright light on the lack of perception -
or abundance of idiocy - in the world in this regard.

I think I've misidentified who I was talking about. I was talking about an
armed citizen caught in a terrorist attack. All the armed citizens pull
their guns, and everybody shoots anyone with a gun. If there actually were
that many citizens carrying guns, that's probably about the way it would
happen. d8-)


I agree with what you're saying. If some smart attackers were to try it
in some place where the citizens were personally armed, they'd probably
build that into their plan. Done right, you could start a chain reaction
of marvelous proportions.

Done properly it has.


But there is no such place in the developed world, including the US. I
haven't checked the percentages in different states but Texas, for
example, has issued carry permits to something like 1.5% of its
population. That wouldn't start a chain reaction. It would be a fizzle.
The effect of armed citizens would be negligible. But the more there
were, the more opportunity there would be to get them shooting each
other. Viola! Critical mass...

Not quickly enough.You have to be ready and you have to practice so that
you will shoot first.
American's aren't so trained as a cultural matter.

JC