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 **

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/

"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 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

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 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/

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.

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

On 2008-11-29, 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.

I do not know about you, but I can.
--
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/

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? I guarantee if someone was trying to break my front door down,
and a loaded AK47 was at hand, it would be put to good use.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:00:18 -0600, Ignoramus11056
wrote:

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...

You have a full auto AK?



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

"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 2008-11-30, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:00:18 -0600, Ignoramus11056
wrote:

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...

You have a full auto AK?

Of course, not. I think that this much should be obvious.
--
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/

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.

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
**

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:08:34 -0800 (PST), the infamous mike
scrawled the following:

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."

The poor guy witnessed and wrote about a despicable act of cowardice
by the police in Mumbai. Some of the teachers at Columbine had
similar feelings of helplessness.

Or could it possibly have been conspiracy? I'd sure be thoroughly
checking out the backgrounds and bank accounts of all the cops on my
beat if I were the police chief in that area.

--
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

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Larry Jaques
wrote on Sun, 30 Nov 2008 04:43:58
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:08:34 -0800 (PST), the infamous mike
scrawled the following:

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."

The poor guy witnessed and wrote about a despicable act of cowardice
by the police in Mumbai. Some of the teachers at Columbine had
similar feelings of helplessness.

Or could it possibly have been conspiracy? I'd sure be thoroughly
checking out the backgrounds and bank accounts of all the cops on my
beat if I were the police chief in that area.

Then what?

The problem is that the Jihadist ideology doesn't require a direct
connection. People can decide they want to be part of it, and act
"independently."
The second part of it is that how are you going to prove that he
was in conspiracy, if there are no back ground or bank account
irregularities? Maybe he doesn't like the situation, and looks the
other way. Maybe he ran out of "hero" - he's a 'peace officer', a
constable, not a contender for fastest gun in the station?



Fnord, it is a combined ops goat rope and monkey rodeo.


pyotr


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

"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

"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

"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

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 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

"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

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

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 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 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

"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:

"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!

"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

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.

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

"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.

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

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.