"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
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.

Nope. I said that there would be no "armed populace." I said it wouldn't
happen. And the rest was a tongue-in-cheek discussion about why Iggy's
hypothetical point wasn't right.

Sheesh. I'm going to have to put extra sarcasm flags on my messages. d8-)



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 didn't switch sides. [notification of previous tongue-in-cheek discussion
ON] I pointed out that Iggy's conclusion is not what would happen, and why.
I've said from the start that the armed people, as few as they might be,
would head for cover like everyone else. I presented the scenario that would
happen in the extremely unlikely case armed citizens would step in and take
on the attackers [notification of previous tongue-in-cheek discussion OFF].

Have I said it enough times now?


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.

Good. Your supine carcass probably will shield two or three small children.
g

Nobody knows how they'll behave under superior fire until they actually
experience it. Debilitating fear is quite common, according to people who
have been there, even among guys who think they're well-trained and tough.
You never know who's going to turn out to have the cool hand until it
happens.



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?

Cites of what? You're the one who says that the majority of folks with
licenses would not panic. In the absence of evidence, I see no reason to
distinguish them from anyone else. Do you have cites that they would be
different?

--
Ed Huntress