On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:30:35 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:05:57 -0600, the infamous "Pete C."
scrawled the following:

You're all falling for the propaganda that is intended to calm the
ignorant masses.

All the sound bites in the media about "months of planning",
"specialized training", "sophisticated", "coordinated" are 100%
propaganda bull **** to try to make the ignorant masses believe it is
difficult and unlikely to happen here.

The simple fact is that a comparable attack of could be perpetrated by a
handful of people (5-10) of reasonable intelligence with less than one
month of planning.

As for the idea that a well armed public would only compound the
problem, this is still more BS propaganda, just from different sources.
The fact is that the armed public would not start shooting at anything
that moves, they would dive for cover and then look to identify the
attacker(s).

It is abundantly easy to differentiate between those taking cover and
those on the offensive. The armed public is not out to be heroes,
they're out to protect themselves (and their family members if
applicable), they aren't going to shoot unless they are confident of the
target and that the target is actively after them.

This has been well proven in actual incidents of various types in the US
where armed civilians were present and didn't take action when there was
only a threat like a robbery, or took action only after the perpetrator
shot someone.

I'm right there with you, Pete. I think Ed's just trying to stir the
chit here, the spoilsport.

Nonsense. Contrary to what Pete is saying, there is no example in the US of
anything like the Mumbai situation, in which the outcome was any different.
Most of our mass killings of civilians have been the work of a single
individual.

Wait a minute. Wasn't it -you- who just said that an armed populace
would become a critical mass and shoot up the place (and themselves)
if tangoes started it? I agreed with Pete that the armed citizens
would _not_ do so.


And the point that Iggy brought up, that he couldn't visualize a similar
outcome if it had been Oklahoma City (or wherever), just doesn't wash. There
aren't that many armed citizens walking the street anywhere in the country.
The states that have the most enthusiastic concealed-carry permit holders
have only a couple of percent of the adult population who even have permits.
And the number actually carrying is a fraction of that.

Right.


So pulling a pistol in that situation, facing some very intense, crazed, and
determined young men armed with AK47's, is much more likely to draw fire
than running for cover would. Iggy's hypothetical is not going to happen.
The outcome would be about the same as in Mumbai.

What's going on, Ed? Do I have the wrong definition of "critical
mass" here or did you just switch sides in this discussion? I'm
confused.

I'm no hero, but I'd be hard pressed NOT to try to stop someone with
an AK taking out the herds in a hotel right in front of me if I were
carrying, though if it were a squad of armed tangoes, I'm sure I'd
think thrice.


There are enough repetitive caveats about ever using your new carry
weapon at all that the majority of folks with licenses likely would
_not_ panic.

Oh, gimme a break.

Cites, please?

--
In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a
question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
-- Bertrand Russell