"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
...
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.

I don't misunderstand the issue, Iggy. I was reporting on the DoJ's study
about deterrence to burglary due to uncertainty over guns in the hands of
homeowners, years ago. And there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, which
Gunner could no doubt recite for you g, about criminals being deterred
because of uncertainty over the presence of armed citizens.

But let's not get off on that side street. The point here is that we aren't
talking about criminals. We're talking about crazed killers who know they're
likely to die in the end, and who are just trying to create as much mayhem
as they can before they die.

Terrorism experts have written about the psychology of these people, and
it's clear that there is no real parallel with armed criminality of the
ordinary sort. They aren't deterred by prospects of their own death. Your
idea of rational behavior is not the basis on which they operate.

I don't know anything about Indian policing, except that they have multiple
layers and departments of armed national police and an armed domestic
intelligence service, and they must have some armed detectives in
plainclothes, as well as some undercover police walking around the streets.
Certainly the terrorists had to know there was a possibility there would be
some of those armed people among their targets, if not regular police who
happened to show up while making their rounds. And if you look at the actual
percentages of armed citizens walking around in the US (well under 2%, in
states that allow concealed carry), there can't be a qualitative difference
in that regard. Somebody in any crowd probably has a gun.

There are news reports on the Mumbai incidents which say that citizens are
angry because there were armed police among them who didn't shoot. Of course
we don't know the circumstances, but it does appear there were some armed
people in the crowds.

So it's unlikely that it would have been any different in a US city, even
where concealed carry is allowed. I think you're buying into an unsupported
and maybe unsupportable idea, that armed citizens could deter terrorism. It
isn't even certain how much they deter ordinary street crime, if at all.

The reasonable position, IMO, is that being armed gives you a good chance,
at least, to defend yourself. Extending this to the idea that you could do
anything about a mass murder is a mistake. And believing that it could deter
mass murder by terrorists, IMO, is another mistake. I think it has no
measurable effect at all.

--
Ed Huntress

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)

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:52:04 -0800, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

in a crowded place, it is not at all clear that a whole bunch of scared and
armed to the teeth civillians, shooting at attackers and at eachother
because they don't know who the attackers are, would reduce casualties.

Well...Im sure they would figure out pretty quickly that the guys with
the AK-47s and pitching grenades were the bad guys.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:11:24 -0500, Wes wrote:

Ignoramus11056 wrote:

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.

No, that one was a truck bomb.

I'm surprised that some of the foreigners didn't have security details. Maybe they did
and it hasn't been reported.


Bombay has typically been one of the safer cities in India. Its been the
center of civilization for many hundreds of years.

Unlike Washington DC



"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:19:51 -0500, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But there is no such place in the developed world, including the US. I
haven't checked the percentages in different states but Texas, for example,
has issued carry permits to something like 1.5% of its population. That
wouldn't start a chain reaction. It would be a fizzle. The effect of armed
citizens would be negligible. But the more there were, the more opportunity
there would be to get them shooting each other. Viola! Critical mass...

Of the 1.5% how many actually carry all the time?

Raises hand.......

Now, say I'm in my hotel room and banging starts going off. I'm staying put, hopefully
finding something for cover, including filling the bath tub and staying behind the wall
next to it.

Someone breaking though the door is going to get shot.

I doubt we would have a bunch of Rambo's.

Wes

Rambos? Thats so slanted it needs a crutch to stay up.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:34:35 -0800 (PST), TwoGuns
wrote:

On Nov 28, 4:40*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in m...





"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
m...
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.

You shouldn't. Just multiply the civilian death count by an order of
magnitude.
Armed civilians sounds good but hasn't any value in the face of surprise
and a well organized and purposeful enemy.
Under those conditions, civilians would have been shot and killed out of
hand specifically on the chance that they might have been armed.
Whether they actually were wouldn't matter a bit. The perpertrators will
certainly be killed regardless you know.

JC

It's simple. Just shoot anyone who isn't a cop and who is waving or shooting
a gun. You can even get them to form a circular firing squad to make it more
efficient. g

I agree with what you're saying. If some smart attackers were to try it in
some place where the citizens were personally armed, they'd probably build
that into their plan. Done right, you could start a chain reaction of
marvelous proportions.

But there is no such place in the developed world, including the US. I
haven't checked the percentages in different states but Texas, for example,
has issued carry permits to something like 1.5% of its population. That
wouldn't start a chain reaction. It would be a fizzle. The effect of armed
citizens would be negligible. But the more there were, the more opportunity
there would be to get them shooting each other. Viola! Critical mass...

--
Ed Huntress

Terrorists are usually:
Young Men 17 to 35
Usually Middle Eastern
Will probably be yelling"Allah Akbar" or whatever.

So if you are in a shootout.
Don't shoot Old Men
Don't shoot any Women unless they are yelling things like "Die Jew,
Die American, Allah Akbar etc."
Chances are pretty good the terrorist will NOT be White.
To make sure you are not mistaken for a terrorist by other armed but
innocent citizens yell at the top of your lungs, "Mohammed is a
faggot, **** Mohammed or some other appropriate term a Islamist
Fanatic would NEVER say.

Double tap head shots and throat first in case the terrorists have
body armor.
Use frangible ammo to prevent richochets.

Or you could just look for a place to hide and cower in fear.

Dennis


Dont hide under the bed...Ed will already be there.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:06:23 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


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.

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.

Everyone with a brain would be afraid, though.


Fear is good. Fear is a great motivator. Fear keeps one alive.

Panic on the other hand, kills faster than a sniff of Rosie ODonnels
skivies.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

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

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

None of it happens in the real world. Tell us about an example of a bunch of
armed citizens taking down some crazed terrorists armed with AK47s. I can't
think of any examples. Can you?


Generally is single terrorists meeting an armed Israeli citizen.

Wes

Gunner Asch wrote:

Panic on the other hand, kills faster than a sniff of Rosie ODonnels
skivies.


Gunner, I *was* eating breakfast. eeeyuck.


Wes

On Nov 29, 2:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Nah! You know that trained, registered gun owners wouldn't panic like
that over most things, Ed.

Not a chance. They'll panic like anyone else.

I'd agree that they would be scared chit less but, not being totally
defenseless has a
calming effect. Also a moderating effect on one's action. I carry
legally. Comes with a
real attitude change if you understand the legal framework that binds you.

Wes

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 Huntress

Thank you, Ed, for a logical analysis - I feel you are quite right,
and from detailed reports on our daily papers telling how it was done
with military precision, and timing, and even to the hijacking a
fishing trawler to come in by sea to avoid normal security measures -
these were trained to a high degree.

25 fanatics, armed with AK47's, grenades, and explosives, trained to
use them, with a co-ordinated plan of attack - who would you put up
against them except people of similar training and weaponry? -
certainly not some unfit, middle aged civilian armed with a pistol
dreaming of the chance to be heroic....

And, eventually, what took them out was larger numbers of combat
trained troops with the weapons and ability to use them.

There has been huge numbers of terrorist attacks in India in recent
years, including in Mumbai, this one is notable because
1.The professionalism, and large financial funding, the attackers
showed
2.That there were foreigners involved - thats the only reason its of
interest to the West.

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:32:36 -0800 (PST), the infamous
scrawled the following:

On Nov 29, 2:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Nah! You know that trained, registered gun owners wouldn't panic like
that over most things, Ed.

Not a chance. They'll panic like anyone else.

I'd agree that they would be scared chit less but, not being totally
defenseless has a
calming effect. Also a moderating effect on one's action. I carry
legally. Comes with a
real attitude change if you understand the legal framework that binds you.

Wes

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 Huntress

Thank you, Ed, for a logical analysis - I feel you are quite right,
and from detailed reports on our daily papers telling how it was done
with military precision, and timing, and even to the hijacking a
fishing trawler to come in by sea to avoid normal security measures -
these were trained to a high degree.

25 fanatics, armed with AK47's, grenades, and explosives, trained to
use them, with a co-ordinated plan of attack - who would you put up
against them except people of similar training and weaponry? -

If I were unarmed and caught in that hotel at that time, I'd want
-anyone- with bullets, arrows, rocks, or rockets to stand up to them
for me. What would you want in that situation?


certainly not some unfit, middle aged civilian armed with a pistol
dreaming of the chance to be heroic....

Google "warsaw ghetto uprising", "french resistance" or numerous
others, Andrew. A few, untrained, poorly-armed men/women/children
fighting back against great odds have been, and will continue to be (I
hope) detailed throughout man's history.


And, eventually, what took them out was larger numbers of combat
trained troops with the weapons and ability to use them.

That's how society usually works. The greater force overcomes.

--
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

On 2008-11-29, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:52:04 -0800, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

in a crowded place, it is not at all clear that a whole bunch of scared and
armed to the teeth civillians, shooting at attackers and at eachother
because they don't know who the attackers are, would reduce casualties.

Well...Im sure they would figure out pretty quickly that the guys with
the AK-47s and pitching grenades were the bad guys.

I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...

i

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Wes wrote:

Do you think the results would be much different if the same number of similar armed
terrorists stormed a Cook County luxury hotel?

Wes

Probably WORSE. since the Chicago police are undoubtedly worse
trained than the Indian "military" type responders. :-)
...lew...

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:45:29 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

I think I've misidentified who I was talking about. I was talking about
an
armed citizen caught in a terrorist attack. All the armed citizens pull
their guns, and everybody shoots anyone with a gun.

Except for the fact that is not what happens in the real world, only in
the fantasy world of the anti-gun loons.

None of it happens in the real world. Tell us about an example of a bunch of
armed citizens taking down some crazed terrorists armed with AK47s. I can't
think of any examples. Can you?

The same anti-gun loons who
make predictions of a "wild west" environment any time someone mentions
concealed carry, yet the reality is that concealed carry has been around
for decades and those "wild west" fantasies have been thoroughly
disproven.

Tell us about the terrorists and the AKs, versus the panicked citizens with
their S&Ws and Glocks. I'd like to hear an example.


Well, if you believe the news, the 4th plane on 9-11, that came down
in PA, was an example of something similar. Some people on the plane
figured they were dead anyway, they weren't taking any **** from the
terrorists. They took the hijack crew out of commission and scattered
jet parts and bodies all over that PA feild insted of the whitehouse
or wherever the terrorists were heading.

No firearms required.

On Nov 29, 10:00*am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...

Why? You can't defend your house with it.

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that "Bill Noble"
wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:52:04 -0800 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
"Ignoramus11056" wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.

in a crowded place, it is not at all clear that a whole bunch of scared and
armed to the teeth civillians, shooting at attackers and at eachother
because they don't know who the attackers are, would reduce casualties.

I realize that liberals have a great deal of difficulty with
discerning good from evil without a list of talking points from the
Media, but for the rest of us it wouldn't be that difficult. Those
who are trying to kill you will serve as a good metric for who
qualifies as what. That would be the non-staff persons with the AKs,
for those of you in Brentwood. (I was going to say "Rio Linda" but in
this sort of situation, the folks in Rio Linda haven't been "educated"
out of common sense.)
Now while you might be the sort who would start blazing away at
anything which moved, those who actually have some experience with
firearms know several things of which you seem unaware. For starters,
unlike in the movies, guns do not have an infinite number of rounds in
them. So you have to make every round count.
Secondly, the guys with the AKs and grenades are probably the bad
guys. That probability approaches unity. Remember that "finite ammo
supply"? that also means you don't shoot unless you are sure of your
shot, or there is no alternative. Going up against a guy with an AK
with only a 38 (not even if it is a 357) is not optimal, unless the
alternative is dieing.

But don't worry. When seconds count, the SWAT team is only
minutes away.



tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and what significance it all has.

Ignoramus11056 wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.



I'm red faced to have to admit that the first "lesson" I learned several
hours into the TV coverage of that horrible mess was that Mumbai is the
post-colonial name for the city I grew up knowing as Bombay.

I kept asking the thirteen or so folks we were over for a Thanksgiving
Day lunch feast, "How come I never heard of Mumbai, India?", and none of
the others were familiar that place name either.

I guess maybe because the two names are so close phonetically, We'd all
been hearing "Bombay" when someone said "Mumbai" and it was only when
text kept appearing on the Fox News TV coverage that we started wondering.

Anyone else care to fess up to the same chauvinistic failure in being up
to date?

Happy Holidays,

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Larry Jaques
wrote on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:06:23
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

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.

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.

Sheesh - the thought of the paperwork alone ...

Everyone with a brain would be afraid, though.

"Fear, Ruby, Fear is a great motivator."

Fear is a response, your body's way of letting you know that what
ever is happening, it bodes ill for it, and you. It is a function of
your brain. What you do with that fear is your choice, choice is a
function of your mind.
Courage is a middle way, a balancing balance between the excesses
of the twin vices of cowardice and recklessness. (Aristotle: vices
are imbalance, usually a deficit of another value.) The coward is
deficit in "bravery" with a surfeit of self-preservation. The
reckless one is deficit in self-preservation, surfeit in bravery, and
over all, inclined to "run down and attack some" rather than "walk
down and kill them all." The "Courageous" one is more in balance. He
may be very afraid, of getting hurt, of failing, of being thought a
coward. But he is master of his fear, at least for the moment.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:15:00 -0600, Ignoramus11056 wrote:

On 2008-11-28, Bill Noble wrote:
(top posting fixed)

"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
...
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
in a crowded place, it is not at all clear that a whole bunch of scared
and armed to the teeth civillians, shooting at attackers and at
eachother because they don't know who the attackers are, would reduce
casualties.

It would probably increase casualties, but it also probaly would deter
attackers.

I don't think so. The real attackers in these cases aren't the
misguided, angry young men doing the shooting (or driving the planes, or
whatever). It's the organization of cynical old men who mis-guides them
to suicide attacks. By the time some kid with a gun shows up in your
vicinity he's just a guided missile, manufactured in a factory where kids
are cheaper and less valued than computers.

I don't know _what_ would do the trick, although I'm pretty sure that if
the b*****s behind this crap ever got into power, the Islamic world would
deeply regret letting it happen.

--
Tim Wescott
Control systems and communications consulting
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott
Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:15:00 -0600, Ignoramus11056 wrote:

On 2008-11-28, Bill Noble wrote:
(top posting fixed)

"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
...
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
in a crowded place, it is not at all clear that a whole bunch of scared
and armed to the teeth civillians, shooting at attackers and at
eachother because they don't know who the attackers are, would reduce
casualties.

It would probably increase casualties, but it also probaly would deter
attackers.

I don't think so. The real attackers in these cases aren't the
misguided, angry young men doing the shooting (or driving the planes, or
whatever). It's the organization of cynical old men who mis-guides them
to suicide attacks. By the time some kid with a gun shows up in your
vicinity he's just a guided missile, manufactured in a factory where kids
are cheaper and less valued than computers.

I don't know _what_ would do the trick,

The same thing that always has. You have to know of these things in advance.
That allows deterence.

Prevention is another matter and requires the removal of the root cause.
Were the US really of a mind to screw the Taliban and Bin Ladens bunch, we'd
simply require the Big Three to each build and run a manufacturing plant in
Afghaistan.

Good jobs, full bellies and a bright future for a child are all the
incentive necessary to behave in a civilized manner.

JC

"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

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

None of it happens in the real world. Tell us about an example of a bunch
of
armed citizens taking down some crazed terrorists armed with AK47s. I
can't
think of any examples. Can you?


Generally is single terrorists meeting an armed Israeli citizen.

Wes

Generally it's single terrorists meeting an armed Israeli policeman or
soldier.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Nov 29, 2:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Nah! You know that trained, registered gun owners wouldn't panic
like
that over most things, Ed.

Not a chance. They'll panic like anyone else.

I'd agree that they would be scared chit less but, not being totally
defenseless has a
calming effect. Also a moderating effect on one's action. I carry
legally. Comes with a
real attitude change if you understand the legal framework that binds
you.

Wes

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 Huntress

Thank you, Ed, for a logical analysis - I feel you are quite right,
and from detailed reports on our daily papers telling how it was done
with military precision, and timing, and even to the hijacking a
fishing trawler to come in by sea to avoid normal security measures -
these were trained to a high degree.

25 fanatics, armed with AK47's, grenades, and explosives, trained to
use them, with a co-ordinated plan of attack - who would you put up
against them except people of similar training and weaponry? -
certainly not some unfit, middle aged civilian armed with a pistol
dreaming of the chance to be heroic....

Just be sure we're distinguishing between people who might take on the
attackers and those who take cover and use a gun for self-defense. The
latter are in better shape than those who are not armed. The problem I have
with these hypotheticals is that people lose sight of the difference.


And, eventually, what took them out was larger numbers of combat
trained troops with the weapons and ability to use them.

There has been huge numbers of terrorist attacks in India in recent
years, including in Mumbai, this one is notable because
1.The professionalism, and large financial funding, the attackers
showed
2.That there were foreigners involved - thats the only reason its of
interest to the West.

Andrew VK3BFA.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Generally is single terrorists meeting an armed Israeli citizen.

Wes

Generally it's single terrorists meeting an armed Israeli policeman or
soldier.


Actually, an Israeli citizen can check out a hand gun from the police station. From what
I've heard they can't own their own. Kinda wierd but that is their system. Since most
citizens have been members of the IDF they know how to use it.

Wes

Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...

Why? You can't defend your house with it.

Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan ... along with
a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons , right down to the kitchen
knives , if necessary .
--
Snag
sometimes ya gotta
shovel manure
to pay the bills

Jeff Wisnia wrote:

Anyone else care to fess up to the same chauvinistic failure in being up
to date?

Well, it just was a place in India to me. A lot of countries and people have changed
names during my lifetime. I guess since the Brits left, changing the name is their
perogative.

Wes

"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.


In the first place, I'd be hiding in my room, door locked, stuff against the door playing
invisible. If they come though, I'm likely going to die. I'm not going down with out
taking someone with me. Have a enough of us at the ****ty end of the stick and their
numbers will decline.

Now consider Columbine. Two kids with guns in a gun free zone. Parents that likely owned
guns prevented from coming to the aid of the children by law enforcment that cowardly sat
back and let kids die. Not being able to defend yourself is the most dangerous position
one can be in.

Freemen are armed.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"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.


In the first place, I'd be hiding in my room, door locked, stuff against
the door playing
invisible.

In the first place, we were talking about the crowds they attacked out in
the street. You aren't in your room yet. d8-)

If they come though, I'm likely going to die. I'm not going down with out
taking someone with me. Have a enough of us at the ****ty end of the
stick and their
numbers will decline.

They breed rather quickly. However, we agree that your chances are better if
you're armed.


Now consider Columbine. Two kids with guns in a gun free zone. Parents
that likely owned
guns prevented from coming to the aid of the children by law enforcment
that cowardly sat
back and let kids die. Not being able to defend yourself is the most
dangerous position
one can be in.

I don't remember those things about Columbine, but it never stuck with me. I
agree about not being able to defend oneself. It's not only dangerous, it
undermines some social relationships and attitudes that I consider to be
important.


Freemen are armed.

Wes

On Nov 30, 7:26 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message


I readily concede that point Ed - if, after the attackers had used
Tactics 101 (ie, throw some grenades then spray the area with
automatic weapons fire, just in case anyone was armed) and hopefully
the armed civilian would be still able to hide with his pistol and
take out at least one of them if threatened, before the attackers
colleagues sprayed the area again to take care of the armed citizen
(and anyone else nearby) ....then I guess it would be good argument
for an armed civilian population.

Still, its all academic, it might have been you who said that no one
would know how they would react in such a situation, bull**** aside.
And we sit here in front of our PCs being sage and wise about
situations that I, at least, hope I never encounter. And we can vote
for whoever promises to take care of the "bad guys" so we can keep on
being armchair experts without having to expose ourselves to any real
danger.

Its 12.30 here in Melbourne, Sunday, all is peaceful, I will have
another coffee, then go and do some gardening while the weather is
nice, thinking of the poor *******s who got killed because they were
in the wrong place at the wrong time and Global Politics intercepted
with their daily lives....I am sure their families will take comfort
from these "how it should have been" discussions here and no doubt in
other forums.

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Nov 29, 11:47*am, pyotr filipivich wrote:

* * * * Secondly, the guys with the AKs and grenades are probably the bad
guys. *That probability approaches unity. *Remember that "finite ammo
supply"? *that also means you don't shoot unless you are sure of your
shot, or there is no alternative. *Going up against a guy with an AK
with only a 38 (not even if it is a 357) is not optimal, unless the
alternative is dieing.

* * * * But don't worry. *When seconds count, the SWAT team is only
minutes away.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...le14086308.ece

"Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved
towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What
is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use
them?
I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

**
mike
**

"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
...
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

The simplest way to prevent terror attacks is to have a world-wide agreement
NOT to report any terror attacks on any media.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"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.

I'm not against shooting a gunman in the back.



In the first place, I'd be hiding in my room, door locked, stuff against
the door playing
invisible.

In the first place, we were talking about the crowds they attacked out in
the street. You aren't in your room yet. d8-)

I hear now that 300 dead were found in their rooms.


If they come though, I'm likely going to die. I'm not going down with out
taking someone with me. Have a enough of us at the ****ty end of the
stick and their
numbers will decline.

They breed rather quickly. However, we agree that your chances are better if
you're armed.

Sometimes winning means doing your bit as you go down.


Now consider Columbine. Two kids with guns in a gun free zone. Parents
that likely owned
guns prevented from coming to the aid of the children by law enforcment
that cowardly sat
back and let kids die. Not being able to defend yourself is the most
dangerous position
one can be in.

I don't remember those things about Columbine, but it never stuck with me. I
agree about not being able to defend oneself. It's not only dangerous, it
undermines some social relationships and attitudes that I consider to be
important.

I'm not going to rehash Columbine other than I'd rather take my chances with teachers that
carry legally than be in a gun free zone.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/...a/30mumbai.php

Sounds like it was only 10 armed terrorists. Not claiming this is true since you know how
often early reports are wrong.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Nov 29, 6:32*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:34:35 -0800 (PST), TwoGuns





wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:40*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in m...

"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
m...
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City..

You shouldn't. Just multiply the civilian death count by an order of
magnitude.
Armed civilians sounds good but hasn't any value in the face of surprise
and a well organized and purposeful enemy.
Under those conditions, civilians would have been shot and killed out of
hand specifically on the chance that they might have been armed.
Whether they actually were wouldn't matter a bit. The perpertrators will
certainly be killed regardless you know.

JC

It's simple. Just shoot anyone who isn't a cop and who is waving or shooting
a gun. You can even get them to form a circular firing squad to make it more
efficient. g

I agree with what you're saying. If some smart attackers were to try it in
some place where the citizens were personally armed, they'd probably build
that into their plan. Done right, you could start a chain reaction of
marvelous proportions.

But there is no such place in the developed world, including the US. I
haven't checked the percentages in different states but Texas, for example,
has issued carry permits to something like 1.5% of its population. That
wouldn't start a chain reaction. It would be a fizzle. The effect of armed
citizens would be negligible. But the more there were, the more opportunity
there would be to get them shooting each other. Viola! Critical mass....

--
Ed Huntress

Terrorists are usually:
Young Men 17 to 35
Usually Middle Eastern
Will probably be yelling"Allah Akbar" or whatever.

So if you are in a shootout.
Don't shoot Old Men
Don't shoot any Women unless they are yelling things like "Die Jew,
Die American, Allah Akbar etc."
Chances are pretty good the terrorist will NOT be White.
To make sure you are not mistaken for a terrorist by other armed but
innocent citizens yell at the top of your lungs, "Mohammed is a
faggot, **** Mohammed or some other appropriate term a Islamist
Fanatic would NEVER say.

Double tap head shots and throat first in case the terrorists have
body armor.
Use frangible ammo to prevent richochets.

Or you could just look for a place to hide and cower in fear.

Dennis

Dont hide *under the bed...Ed will already be there.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...Gunner you are a fool...and a dead one if in that situation.

Ed is right...only a fool stands against a superior force.

TMT

On Nov 28, 9:16*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

I think I've misidentified who I was talking about. I was talking about an
armed citizen caught in a terrorist attack. All the armed citizens pull
their guns, and everybody shoots anyone with a gun.

Except for the fact that is not what happens in the real world, only in
the fantasy world of the anti-gun loons. The same anti-gun loons who
make predictions of a "wild west" environment any time someone mentions
concealed carry, yet the reality is that concealed carry has been around
for decades and those "wild west" fantasies have been thoroughly
disproven.

You are so full of sh*t..haven't you ever heard of friendly fire?

Anyone with REAL combat experience knows that you can easily be shot
by your friends.

TMT

On Nov 28, 9:45*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message

ter.com...



Ed Huntress wrote:

I think I've misidentified who I was talking about. I was talking about
an
armed citizen caught in a terrorist attack. All the armed citizens pull
their guns, and everybody shoots anyone with a gun.

Except for the fact that is not what happens in the real world, only in
the fantasy world of the anti-gun loons.

None of it happens in the real world. Tell us about an example of a bunch of
armed citizens taking down some crazed terrorists armed with AK47s. I can't
think of any examples. Can you?

The same anti-gun loons who
make predictions of a "wild west" environment any time someone mentions
concealed carry, yet the reality is that concealed carry has been around
for decades and those "wild west" fantasies have been thoroughly
disproven.

Tell us about the terrorists and the AKs, versus the panicked citizens with
their S&Ws and Glocks. I'd like to hear an example.

--
Ed Huntress

Damn it Ed...don't ask for proof...you will destroy their fantasy.

TMT

On Nov 29, 10:30*am, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:45:29 -0500, "Ed Huntress"





wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

I think I've misidentified who I was talking about. I was talking about
an
armed citizen caught in a terrorist attack. All the armed citizens pull
their guns, and everybody shoots anyone with a gun.

Except for the fact that is not what happens in the real world, only in
the fantasy world of the anti-gun loons.

None of it happens in the real world. Tell us about an example of a bunch of
armed citizens taking down some crazed terrorists armed with AK47s. I can't
think of any examples. Can you?

The same anti-gun loons who
make predictions of a "wild west" environment any time someone mentions
concealed carry, yet the reality is that concealed carry has been around
for decades and those "wild west" fantasies have been thoroughly
disproven.

Tell us about the terrorists and the AKs, versus the panicked citizens with
their S&Ws and Glocks. I'd like to hear an example.

Well, if you believe the news, the 4th plane on 9-11, that came down
in PA, was an example of something similar. Some people on the plane
figured they were dead anyway, they weren't taking any **** from the
terrorists. They took the hijack crew out of commission and scattered
jet parts and bodies all over that PA feild insted of the whitehouse
or wherever the terrorists were heading.

No firearms required.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Would you mind providing a REAL cite for that?

There is no proof that the hijackers were actually taken out.

TMT

On Nov 28, 9:25*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

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.

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.

Everyone with a brain would be afraid, though.

Pretty much everyone will dive for cover, armed or not, and if their
cover is good they are going to stay hidden and quiet even if they are
armed. I know I for one would not waste a single round if I can help it
and if I can stay hidden and eventually come out when the dust has
settled without ever firing a shot I'll be very happy.

Having recently spent a couple weeks in Egypt where we had a security
escort armed with an MP5 and traveled in an armed convoy at one point, I
can tell you it is interesting being a target and keeping a low profile
would take precedence over any thoughts of heroics.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correct.

On Nov 28, 9:02*pm, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane at PTD dot NET
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:11:24 -0500, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus11056 wrote:

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.
Do you think the results would be much different if the same number of similar armed
terrorists stormed a Cook County luxury hotel?

Of course not. *Chicago has a handgun ban. *Only the drug dealers and
other criminals could defend themselves. ;-)

On a more serious note, there would probably be a very similar outcome
in most American cities. *Even though a fair number of people have
carry permits, probably the majority who have them don't carry on a
daily basis. *The one or two citizens who were armed would defend
themselves and others close by, but it's unlikely they'd be out
creeping around corners hunting the terrorists with their handguns.
There might be a little less loss of life, but not much.

Now an attack on a roadside restaurant at 4:30 AM on the opening day
of Buck season in PA - that might be a different story. *There are
approximately 1 million licensed hunters in PA, the majority of which
will be out there this Monday AM - a small standing army at no cost to
the populace.

RWL

With most suffering from hangovers and/or illegal blood alcohol
levels.

Apparently you don't hunt often.

TMT

Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.

Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan ... along with
a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons , right down to the kitchen
knives , if necessary .

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire weapon.
Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have an AK-47.

David