"RB" wrote in message
...
Pete C. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"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.

I never claimed that there was a comparable attack in the US, nor have I
ever claimed that the outcome would be substantially different. I have
indicated that various cases in the US have clearly shown that
you crazed idea that any armed citizen suddenly becomes Rambo and tries
to take out the bad guy is bunk. The armed citizen dives for cover like
everyone else in the initial attack. The difference is that the armed
citizen has a reasonable chance of defending themselves after that
initial attack if the attacker is hunting for more victims.

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.

Oddly enough I couldn't locate the total CHL stats for the population in
TX.

Last I heard was just shy of 300,000. Might be over that by now.

(288,000)

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...mographics.htm

That's roughly 1.6% of the adult population, although it doesn't account for
those who have died or moved out of the state over the renewal period, which
is five years. So it's something under 1.5%.

--
Ed Huntress