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/

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.


"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/


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"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.

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

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"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.

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

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.

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

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 2008-11-28, 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.

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

i


"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 **

--
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/

"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?

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

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:40:25 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"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.

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

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


there would be to get them shooting each other. Viola! Critical mass...

Egad! Turn in your poetic and editor's licenses please, sir.
"Viola!", indeed.

--
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 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:11:24 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

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.

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

Not at all different. Now Maricopa County, AZ would give a tango a
very good run for his money, ah reckon.

--
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

Larry Jaques wrote:

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

Not at all different. Now Maricopa County, AZ would give a tango a
very good run for his money, ah reckon.

And don't show up at the local motel right now. Full of whitetail hunters atm.

Wes

"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
news
On 2008-11-28, 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.

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


No. it wouldn't.
They have already jumped the shark.

JC

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

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"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.

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

Well no Ed, you just shoot everybody.
I mean, if a bady has resigned himself to death for some cause.
This entire episode has shown a bright light on the lack of perception - or
abundance of idiocy - in the world in this regard.


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.

Done properly it has.


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...

Not quickly enough.You have to be ready and you have to practice so that you
will shoot first.
American's aren't so trained as a cultural matter.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

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.

Done properly it has.

Cites?

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"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?

A good question. Some fraction, which brings the number down farther.


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.

In your room, you could be OK.

But given their obvious disregard for their own lives, I think they could
work around that easily. Concentrate on crowds outdoors. That's some of what
they did in this case.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:40:25 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
.. .

"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.

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

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.


there would be to get them shooting each other. Viola! Critical mass...

Egad! Turn in your poetic and editor's licenses please, sir.
"Viola!", indeed.

So you want "cello"?

--
Ed Huntress

"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

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"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.

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

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.

Wes wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

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.

Done properly it has.

Cites?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_J...ll_of_the_Gang


--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
If Bill gates had a dime for every windows machine that crashed...
Wait a minute, he does!

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:30:25 -0600, 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.

You should if you live in the United States, after all, there have
been sufficient "public shootings" within living memory to make a
reasonable assessment of what the reaction will be.

Do some research. Start with, say the guy in the water tower in Texas,
and review all the shootings up to the latest Mall shootings and what
do you find? I don't think you will discover a significant reaction
by an armed citizenry.

Cheers,

Schwiek
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildotcom)

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"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.

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

Well no Ed, you just shoot everybody.
I mean, if a bady has resigned himself to death for some cause.
This entire episode has shown a bright light on the lack of perception -
or abundance of idiocy - in the world in this regard.

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. If there actually were
that many citizens carrying guns, that's probably about the way it would
happen. d8-)


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.

Done properly it has.


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...

Not quickly enough.You have to be ready and you have to practice so that
you will shoot first.
American's aren't so trained as a cultural matter.

JC

TwoGuns wrote:

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.

And as soon aS YOU GET TO MoHam.... everyone IN THE ROOM SHOOTS YOU.
The "bystanders" because they figure you are a terrorist yelling about
mohammed, and the terrorists because they know you are not one of
them.
jk

"TwoGuns" wrote in message
...
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.

TwoGuns, these guys apparently were from Kashmir; some, possibly, from
Pakistan. Unless you look closely you probably couldn't tell them from the
other Indian Muslims -- maybe not even then. They also apparently were
pretty quiet.

If someone were to pull the same trick in the US, they'd need Europeans.
There are plenty of them.

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.

See above.

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.

I'll remember that the next time I hear screaming terrorists. d8-)

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

Are we running at the time we're doing this, or are we standing in our best
Beasley competition pose? Is this a timed-fire event?

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

Finding a place to hide would be the #1 priority for anyone who isn't a
candidate for the looney bin.

--
Ed Huntress

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

Wes wrote:

"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

Indeed. I have carry permits for two states (so far).

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.

--
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

Good Solder Schweik wrote:

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:30:25 -0600, 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.

You should if you live in the United States, after all, there have
been sufficient "public shootings" within living memory to make a
reasonable assessment of what the reaction will be.

Do some research. Start with, say the guy in the water tower in Texas,
and review all the shootings up to the latest Mall shootings and what
do you find? I don't think you will discover a significant reaction
by an armed citizenry.

You'll find the commonality in nearly all of the cases is that they
occurred where armed citizenry was prejudicially excluded, but of course
you already knew that.

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.

"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

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.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:30:03 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
Well no Ed, you just shoot everybody.
I mean, if a bady has resigned himself to death for some cause.
This entire episode has shown a bright light on the lack of perception -
or abundance of idiocy - in the world in this regard.

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. If there actually were
that many citizens carrying guns, that's probably about the way it would
happen. d8-)

I'd think you'd want to shoot only the guys spraying and praying with
AK-47s and wearing shemaghs.

--
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

"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.

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.

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.


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.


Everyone with a brain would be afraid, though.

--
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

"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

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?

I never said anything about armed citizens taking down a bunch of
terrorists. I just debunked you wild idea that these armed citizens will
all draw their guns and try to play hero. There have been plenty of
examples where armed citizens were in incidents such as bank robberies
and did nothing since they were not in immediate danger. There have also
been examples of armed citizens taking down a robber only after that
robber took a shot at someone else.


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.

No, you don't want to hear an example you just want to babble
unsupported anti-gun nonsense.

Armed citizens don't play hero, they dive for cover like everybody else.
The difference comes after the initial attack when the armed citizen has
a chance to defend themselves if the attackers are searching for more
victims.

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. The DPS site does have statistics for the past year on CHLs issued,
revoked, suspended, etc. in various breakdowns by age, sex, race,
county, etc. however.


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.

You're apparently the only idiot who would draw their weapon and try to
play Rambo in that situation. The rest of us would dive for cover and
take the best defensive position possible should the attacker(s) look
for more victims.



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.

Apparently you need one. Survival instinct takes precedence over
delusions of Rambohood for those of us who actually carry.

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.

--
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/

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:30:25 -0600, 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.
================
This may be of some interest in this context
------------
Friday, November 28, 2008
[Max field length is unknown]
SEARCH
close
Web search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
This blog sacbee.com Web
Sacto 9-1-1
The Sacramento Bee's Crime blog is a comprehensive report of
crime news, trends and information for your community and beyond.
November 28, 2008
Neighbor uses lawn decoration to subdue knife-wielding man

From Kim Minugh:

When a drunken neighbor came over and threatened his Thanksgiving
guests with a kitchen knife, one Del Paso Heights man allegedly
took matters - and a plastic candy cane - into his own hands.

In what police said was self-defense, the man used the two-foot
plastic lawn decoration to beat 49-year-old Donald Kercell until
police could take Kercell into custody, said Sacramento Police
spokesman Sgt. Norm Leong.

Kercell allegedly became intoxicated, went over to a neighbor's
home on the 3600 block of Dayton Street early Thursday evening
and began waving a kitchen knife at people gathered on the lawn,
Leong said.

When Kercell cut a few people's clothing, Leong said, a man at
the home decided to fight back. Other people at the home called
police.

Leong said the candy cane-wielding man does not face any charges.
The knife-wielding man, however, was arrested and booked into the
Sacramento County Main Jail on suspicion of assault with a deadly
weapon.
---------------
for article with comments click on
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs...es/017411.html

It appears to be far more of a mental attitude than anything
else.

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

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?

I never said anything about armed citizens taking down a bunch of
terrorists. I just debunked you wild idea that these armed citizens will
all draw their guns and try to play hero.

Wait a minute. That's not *my* wild idea. I was responding with a
tongue-in-cheek reaction (the efficiency of the circular firing squad) to
Iggy's suggestion that something different would occur in Oklahoma City.

People were attacked en masse and many were killed. It would be exactly the
same if a typical percentage (for the US, in concealed-carry states) of
those people were armed. After the initial killings and the rest dispersed
and hid, the only difference is that the attackers probably would move on,
as they apparently did in several instances in Mumbai. It was TwoGuns, not
me, who suggested that the armed ones would stand there and shoot it out.

The mass of dead people winds up being the same either way. At the most,
having a few armed citizens around would invoke a slight difference in the
attackers' tactics, with no real difference in outcome.

Anyone who pulled a gun would be the first to draw fire from the attackers.
They have a lot more firepower, and they're psychologically prepared. No one
is psychologically prepared to be the target of a mass murder except,
possibly, for a battle-hardened combatant. No one shifts gears instantly.
The attackers' gears were already shifted before they started shooting.

There have been plenty of
examples where armed citizens were in incidents such as bank robberies
and did nothing since they were not in immediate danger. There have also
been examples of armed citizens taking down a robber only after that
robber took a shot at someone else.

We're not talking about robberies here. These are people who start with the
*intention* of killing. They aren't trying to avoid people. They're going
after them. And their intention is to create mayhem and panic, not to get
around defenses to steal from a bank.

It's a much easier proposition, especially when you're prepared to die for
it, as this group obviously is. One or two percent of armed citizens in the
crowd isn't going to change the outcome.



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.

No, you don't want to hear an example you just want to babble
unsupported anti-gun nonsense.

Yeah, if you had a comparable example, I'd be interested. But there isn't
one, and you know it. You're just talking through your hat.


Armed citizens don't play hero, they dive for cover like everybody else.
The difference comes after the initial attack when the armed citizen has
a chance to defend themselves if the attackers are searching for more
victims.

And if you'd actually followed this thread, instead of skipping parts,
making assumptions, and jumping into the middle, you'd know that Wes and I
already discussed that subject and we all agree. Being armed in that
situation could, in the end, give you a better chance of defending
*yourself*, if the attackers started to seek people out *after* the initial
attack on a mass of people in an open place. That's what being armed for
self-defense is about.

But it doesn't change the event, which is what Iggy was suggesting. The
attackers still have the upper hand in the mass attack. They'll still kill a
mass of people. They might change tactics, but the outcome would be the
same.

In other words, they could accomplish the same thing in Oklahoma City as
they have in Mumbai. The details would be slightly different but you still
wind up with a mass of dead people, and dead attackers in the end. That's
how Mumbai is working out, too.

--
Ed Huntress

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

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.

Then what's your objection? Iggy suggested it wouldn't happen in Oklahoma
City. TwoGuns said the armed citizens would shoot it out. The rest of this
is a case of shooting down those two points: it *could* happen in a city
here, and those armed citizens *would not* stand and shoot it out.

It looks like you've misread a sarcastic remark as a serious one, and then
wound up agreeing with me even though you're calling me an idiot. g


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.

That's a good summary. Again, it doesn't change the event. You still have a
mass of dead people and, in the end, some dead attackers. That's what they
wanted, and that's what they got. Having armed citizens wouldn't change that
a bit.



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. The DPS site does have statistics for the past year on CHLs issued,
revoked, suspended, etc. in various breakdowns by age, sex, race,
county, etc. however.

I spend half a day digging up the statistics for TX around a year or two
ago. It's probably in the Google archives. They showed that the total number
of CCW permits issued up to that time was between 1% and 1-1/2% of the adult
population. If you're curious, we were talking a lot about Dallas, so a
search on my name and "Dallas" probably would dig it up.



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.

You're apparently the only idiot who would draw their weapon and try to
play Rambo in that situation. The rest of us would dive for cover and
take the best defensive position possible should the attacker(s) look
for more victims.

Pete, you're not following this thread at all. I made clear that I would
head for cover, along with the other people who aren't candidates for the
looney bin.




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.

Apparently you need one. Survival instinct takes precedence over
delusions of Rambohood for those of us who actually carry.

You've been watching too much TV, Pete. They would panic along with everyone
else. Panic is the natural reaction.

--
Ed Huntress

"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.

There is no such lack of certainty. Stuff like this is emminently
preventable but not by an armed populace.
By the time an attack like this gets started, the terrorists have already
"won".


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.

What they would actually do, and in this case actually did, was bring along
grenades.


Instead, they would probably resort to using gasoline tanker trucks or
some other implements of death.

They might but the purpose of terrorists is, by definition, to terrorize and
there isn't much scarier than a small band of well armed, hard to detect and
violent criminals who consider themselves dead meat from the get go.
The aftermath of this event will have a lot more to do with frequence going
forward than anything else.


JC