On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:37:38 -0600, Ignoramus11056
wrote:

On 2008-11-29, Ed Huntress wrote:

I think that facing three or four determined, fanatical loonies with AK47's
would push anyone except a *current* combat veteran over the limit. The only
question is how many 7.62 mm bullets you'd take before hitting the ground;
and whether it would happen before or after you got off a shot with your
Glock or whatever.

They have every advantage -- especially if they see you pull a gun.

Arming oneself for individual self-defense against normal criminals has a
reasonable statistical chance of working in your favor. In this situation,
it's probably a liability.

Ed, you misunderstand what is the issue.

The issue is not the *certainty* with which armed hostages could
win over well armed terrorists.

The issue is *lack of certainty* that the terrorists would win.

If there was one person at Taj Mahal armed with a gun, without
uniform, AND the terrorists did not know how it was, AND they did not
know where he was, but they knew that he was there, they would think
twice about attacking it and making fools of themselves.

Instead, they would probably resort to using gasoline tanker trucks or
some other implements of death.

Iggy, stop and think. The people who have just completed an assault of
the buildings and killed or captured the terrorists were in exactly
the same position you describe and they didn't use a gasoline tanker.
Why do you think that the terrorists would be different?
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)