RB wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 1, 10:35 am, RB wrote:
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.

Pete has it right. CHL holders are primarily interested in saving their
own skin and that of their loved ones. They will be crouched in the back
room along with the other sheep, but they will at least have a chance if
a shooter discovers them.

But if an easy shot comes up on a lone target, many would take it.
Especially if it might stop additional killings.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A small chance...a very small chance.

How does a handgun protect you from a gernade?

It doesn't. It doesn't protect you from anything

Not entirely true. Said handgun is normally (excluding toys like Glocks)
a thick hunk of metal so it can stop some fragments. I once heard of a
guy who had a motorcycle accident and did a 100yd type slide. Seems his
gun literally saved his butt and the butt of the gun had a nice chunk
ground off on the pavement.