Vid: India gun control enabled Mumbai slaughter


PDA






DadaOrwell2
November 28, 2008, 05:33 PM
From RidleyReport.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP295xpH15A

A news.google search two days after the Mumbai terror attack finds NO media discussion of India's draconian gun laws...and the role they played in facilitating this week's massacre. Since mainstream reporters aren't pointing that out, this video strives to do it for them.

Digg it, if you like:
http://digg.com/world_news/India_gun_control_enabled_Mumbai_massacre

If you enjoyed reading about "Vid: India gun control enabled Mumbai slaughter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
doubleplay
November 28, 2008, 08:29 PM
If you think this massacre could have been avoided by couple of CWP holders I think you are sorely mistaken. This is not a "die hard" movie.
Back in 1997 entire Los Angeles police force was helpless for hours against two tugs holding machine guns.We are talking about 20+ trained assailants here...
I am all for guns but I think you are stretching your imagination

cassandrasdaddy
November 28, 2008, 08:39 PM
the ridley report? sweet jeebus

withdrawn34
November 29, 2008, 01:43 AM
Unless everyone was open carrying ARs, at least, and also had defense tactics planned out, I think we have to be careful about stating that a few people with handguns could have really been super effective.

Better than nothing, for sure, but let's look at the facts and be realistic. I know this might sound like heresy to some of you, but hear me out.

1) Several well-conditioned and well-practiced men following a meticulous plan using fully automatic rifles in extremely crowded city areas during the most crowded times of the year.
2) GRENADES. Sorry, but I just don't know how I would ever defend against a grenade. Maybe I could throw it back, I'm not sure. All I know is that I really, really doubt real life could ever be like a few hours of playing Call of Duty.
3) Group tactics by the terrorists. How do you engage multiple targets at a distance while trying to take cover from automatic rifle fire? What even is acceptable cover from this type of fire in a civilian setting?

I'm not saying that there wouldn't have been a difference had some of these people been armed in some way (maybe even just a few rifles and shotguns in a back office in the hotels). However, I still think there would have been significant casualties.

Hell, even arming the police with something substantive would have even helped! Special armed squads are great but don't help when it takes several minutes for them to arrive versus a street cop who may have arrived much sooner.

This is a true terrorist attack in every sense of the word.

I don't have any solutions and I'm not proposing any. Just trying to give everyone, including myself, something to think about.

Art Eatman
November 29, 2008, 09:58 AM
Stipulate a total freedom of open/concealed carry.

If everybody wandering around the hotels and streets were armed--and trained and competent--the question is what they could have done against explosives? Against sudden spray/pray AK fire at close range?

Given the nature of assaults on our soldiers in Irag and Afghanistan, I don't believe that even a fully armed citizenry would have been a deterrent against such an assault.

Dealing with the proverbial lone nutzoid with a gun is vastly different than dealing with trained and dedicated terrorists who come at you in groups.

And the average CHL holder here in the US is unlikely to want to or be able to deal with multiple terrorists in a hotel building. Not if he has much going for him in the way of smarts, anyhow.

Some situations, laws or the lack thereof don't appear to relate to the problem.

Coronach
November 29, 2008, 10:34 AM
I doubt that a CCW-rich environment could have thwarted these attacks. They were well-coordinated and seemingly well executed. Anyone standing up against them with an eye to preventing the takeover would have been gunned down, since the response would be, by definition, uncoordinated.

That Said (tm), having a CCW on hand may very well have made the difference between being herded into a deathtrap from an outside café, and being able to shoot the one or two assailants charged with gathering up everyone from a given area, and then running like a bunch of frightened hares with my family.

So, would it have made a difference in the big picture? Probably not. Might it have made a difference in one or two of the many small pictures that make up the big picture? Quite probably.

Mike

JImbothefiveth
November 29, 2008, 10:38 AM
A hotel full of CCW holders probably could have stopped at least a few of the terrorists.

The Foo
November 29, 2008, 10:52 AM
This type of situation would be hard, even for CC holders.

The average CC holder carries what in his pistol on average? 13 rounds? 8 or so if it's a 1911? Maybe, just maybe a spare magazine or so.

Like someone said before, this isn't Die Hard.

JImbothefiveth
November 29, 2008, 10:56 AM
I didn't say do it without harm, most of the people confronting the terrorists, if not all, would get shot, but an entire hotel full of them(who's almost certainly going to die if they don't fight back, unless they can hide) would be able to take out at least a few terrorists.

HK G3
November 29, 2008, 11:00 AM
I think the initial assault, no, but from what I've been reading, it sounds as if towards the latter part of the attack, where gunmen were taking Westerners and others hostage, there was one assailant guarding hundreds of people, and had split up. Also, IIRC, none of them appeared to be wearing body armor, was that the case?

A CCW would have been a great tool to pull at just the right moment should you have survived the initial assault. In this scenario, I strongly doubt any LE agency would have had a problem with a permit-holder putting an "assassin's" shot into one of the gunmen - at which point, there's at least one AK-47 in the hands of some good guys, if not more, since they apparently brought along nap-sacks full of Kalashnikovs and grenades into the hostage areas. Once that's done, call local law enforcement, and update them as to your condition, and just hunker down and keep them updated, so at least you won't get shot at by the tactical response teams.

In my mind, it could have made some difference towards the end for sure.

7.62X25mm
November 29, 2008, 11:20 AM
They pulled up in boats, tied up at the public dock, walked onto the street openly armed with AK's, grenades, I think RPG's.

India Marine Commandos -- with air support and communications weren't able to get them under control for hours.

-- but a suicide bomber in Israel was once taken out at a holy site by two legally armed civilians. So there's an outside chance.

RKBA for the PEOPLE is to protect the citizens from tyranny of their govt.

". . . all enemies, foreign and domestic."

conserv1
November 29, 2008, 11:26 AM
Maybe,.. if they KNEW a number of people had concealed weapons, the wouldn't have done it in the first place.

Doubleplay wrote..
"If you think this massacre could have been avoided by couple of CWP holders I think you are sorely mistaken. This is not a "die hard" movie.
Back in 1997 entire Los Angeles police force was helpless for hours against two tugs holding machine guns.We are talking about 20+ trained assailants here...
I am all for guns but I think you are stretching your imagination"

IF 2 armed citizens each killed 1 terrorist, at least 20 lives could have been saved. 200 dead /20 assailants averages out to 10 per terrorist.
20 people dying needlessly affects hundreds of others.

The "sheeple attitude" is a major problem in this world.

Old Guy
November 29, 2008, 12:32 PM
Ghandi said the most terrible thing the British did to India. Was to take away their weapons.

And he was a pacifist!

They could have made a terrible mistake, picked a Hotel where a big seminar of Firearms Instructors was in progress! 200+ of good shots!

It appears once the initial assault had changed to seek and collect, two armed friends could have killed their captor, collected a AK, and his bug out bag, headed to the highest point in the building, and if they had finally been killed, an expensive death.

The worse place to assault is up wards on stairs, pull pin, throw, and follow that with a short blind burst of AK fire (that is if you had the AK and Bug Out bag) 5 or 6 grenades, 5 or 6 magazines (4X30 equals 130 rounds) real close range, semi auto 3 rounds per target.

If you have a few able bodied people, block the stairs with mattresses. You would be amazed what good leader ship can accomplish in a very short time.

So you get killed in the end? You can't live for ever.

cassandrasdaddy
November 29, 2008, 12:35 PM
massive assault? this was 10 guys

onebigelf
November 29, 2008, 12:43 PM
They killed almost 200 unarmed people. There's a way armed resistance would have been worse? People in the neighborhood where that Jewish center was located threw ROCKS until they were driven off with machine gun fire and grenades. You don't think a handful of AR's and Fn-FALs would have helped? Imagine someone trying this in Tampa. How long before the handguns and deer rifles come out and the attackers start taking casualties?

John

Grey54956
November 29, 2008, 07:33 PM
I agree with the math, at least to some extent. The 10 men may have killed 200, but I believe that terrorist effectiveness grows geometrically based on their number. With 10 terrorists, they may have been good for 20 each, but if a ccw holder, or a few holders had taken down 2-3, they may have only been good for maybe 6 each.

ServiceSoon
November 29, 2008, 07:50 PM
The fact is I would rather my government "allow" me to be lawfully armed in this situation rather than lawfully unarmed.

Coronach
November 29, 2008, 07:59 PM
They killed almost 200 unarmed people. There's a way armed resistance would have been worse? People in the neighborhood where that Jewish center was located threw ROCKS until they were driven off with machine gun fire and grenades. You don't think a handful of AR's and Fn-FALs would have helped? Imagine someone trying this in Tampa. How long before the handguns and deer rifles come out and the attackers start taking casualties?I haven't read anything from the naysayers on here to indicate that they think that armed resistance is somehow worse than going with the program on the terrorists' suicide mission. They're just saying that uncoordinated, armed resistance is unlikely to thwart the attack.

Me? I'm split. Sure, if a high percentage of people were CCing, and were well trained, that may have gone very differently. More likely, a few CCers would be able to alter their small part of the scene, quite possibly for the better. I agree that this makes it all worthwhile, along with the general deterrent effect of CCW being legal. People are just saying to keep it in perspective.

Mike

lacoochee
November 30, 2008, 02:18 AM
Seems to me that this went on long enough that after the initial attack, folks with the means would start responding. Imagine it happens in a town near you, it sucks if your in the first 10 houses (and not prepared), but here in Pasco county, the attack would have quickly ground to halt after that. This was happening in people neighborhoods, they could have responded, they may not have but we will never know since they were deprived of the means of doing so.

This type of attack by the way is the way I have always considered the next likely thing in this country. Take the average 10 story office building in Tampa, they typically have two or three entrances, two fire escapes and the elevator bank, and over a thousand for the most part unarmed people (hey, who wants to lose their job?). 5 - 10 gunmen could in a matter of minutes completely own that real estate, 1 team to control the ground floor exits and another on a seek and destroy 1 level at a time to 10. No response could come fast enough to stop it.

We need to wake up, we are not immune to this, it will happen here.

mordechaianiliewicz
November 30, 2008, 02:41 AM
This was going to be bad no matter what. This would have been some dead people in a society where everyone is openly armed. As has been said before, there is a big difference between one lone nut (regardless of armament) and a well coordinated group.

However, as has also been said, they had to split up and take on multiple missions. They had to arrange themselves in such a manner that a few CCW holders could have cut their numbers somewhat.

It could have meant the difference between 50-100 people dying instead of 200 dying. Look at it as if one guy that was going to kill 25 and wound 70 was taken out of the fight early. It's coldblooded to look at it in terms of numbers, but it is a matter of numbers.

CCW (or simply, people being able to run to offices, homes, cars which contained weapons) could have easily reduced the overall number dead.

But, the main issue is this. These terrorists knew that the people would be unarmed, they knew the police would have a horrible response time, and they knew that it would be a while before the police had a chance to to get a specialized team in to counter them.

Shoot, if these guys had really been on the ball they would have taken initial shots and then ran, probably getting away to fight another day.

Indians are lucky that this ended at 200, and they are lucky they got all the guys. If I were analyzing this I would be looking not only at liberalizing the guns laws, I would (much more importantly) be looking at setting up an HRT and Rapid Response Unit in all the major city's police departments to handle situations of this nature.

Deanimator
November 30, 2008, 07:03 AM
I agree with the math, at least to some extent. The 10 men may have killed 200, but I believe that terrorist effectiveness grows geometrically based on their number. With 10 terrorists, they may have been good for 20 each, but if a ccw holder, or a few holders had taken down 2-3, they may have only been good for maybe 6 each.
I'm sure that their plans were premised on not meeting armed resistance from anybody but the police and military, and probably not EFFECTIVE resistance from anybody but the regular army and "elite" anti-terror units.

If the same thing happened in Cleveland or Louisville, they couldn't assume that they'd only deal with Delta Force or even the Local PD. They'd have to seriously consider that ANY adult on the street could be the one to hide behind a concrete garbage bin, THEN shoot them in the back when they passed.

Any place but some crap hole like Chicago, and the odds are excellent of such an attack turning into "The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid".

I think that the major reason why this has never been tried in the United States except on a tiny scale (Mir Aimal Khansi outside CIA HQ) is that the the wouldbe perpetrators simply can't calculate their odds of success to any acceptable degree. They want to kill a bunch of people who won't fight back. They don't want to get into a gunfight. In St. Louis or Indianapolis, that's just can't be guaranteed.

Double Naught Spy
November 30, 2008, 08:18 AM
massive assault? this was 10 guys

Nobody has determined how many terrorists acted. It has been speculated that it could have been carried out by as few as 10 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/just-ten-trained-terrorists-caused-carnage-1041639.html), but this hasn't been shown to be the actual number. They do have 9 dead and 1 arrested, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-india_30int.ART.State.Edition2.4a6ed87.html but that doesn't mean that there weren't others that escaped.

As far as the massiveness, sure it was massive. They managed to strike numerous places over a fairly large geographical area and keep up the fighting for days.

Mumbai: A timeline of the attacks by suspected Pakistani militants in Mumbai that have killed at least 119 people.
• About 9:20 p.m. Wednesday shooting starts at Chhatrapati Shivaji rail station, one of the world's busiest, handling thousands of passengers each day.

• Within the hour, other attacks occur at four other locations: the Nariman House, home of the ultra-orthodox Jewish outreach group Chabad Lubavitch; Leopold's restaurant, a landmark popular with foreigners; the Oberoi hotel, a five-star landmark; the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower hotel, a landmark of Mumbai luxury since 1903, and a favorite watering hole of the city's elite.

• At 10:50 p.m. shooting breaks out near Times of India newspaper offices in southern part of the city, quickly followed by attacks near the Bombay Municipal Corporation, the civic body that governs Mumbai, and the Cama hospital in southern Mumbai and the GT hospital in the city center.

• Just after midnight gunman attack the Vidhan Sabha, the legislative assembly, the lower house of state legislature in India.

• Around 3 a.m. Thursday, large fire breaks out at the Taj hotel and an hour later authorities begin escorting people out of the Taj hotel


And somewhere in there, they hit the Cafe Leopold.

I think that the major reason why this has never been tried in the United States except on a tiny scale (Mir Aimal Khansi outside CIA HQ) is that the the wouldbe perpetrators simply can't calculate their odds of success to any acceptable degree. They want to kill a bunch of people who won't fight back. They don't want to get into a gunfight. In St. Louis or Indianapolis, that's just can't be guaranteed.

You are thinking like a Johnson statistician in Vietnam (body counts) and terrorism doesn't exactly work like that. It is about how much of regular society can be disrupted, not by the actual body counts. So to be successful, they don't have to kill tremendous amounts of people. While not terrorists per se (not killing for the purpose of trying to bring about social, political, or religious change/influence), but rather series killers, the DC snipers have definitely demonstrated how easy it is to grip a large area in terror for a prolonged period of time. The only reason their impact wasn't more significant was that they weren't terrorists that were part of a larger group, just a couple of guys who wanted to kill people. So when they were caught, their threat ended. With terrorist groups, catching the perps of a given event doesn't end the threat, just ends the event. The event itself, as in Mumbai, demonstrates the ability of the terrorists to be able to reek havoc and death at their discretion.

Thin Black Line
November 30, 2008, 08:35 AM
If you think this massacre could have been avoided by couple of CWP holders I think you are sorely mistaken.

and

Unless everyone was open carrying ARs, at least, and also had defense tactics planned out, I think we have to be careful about stating that a few people with handguns could have really been super effective.

If reporters were getting close enough with a camera for nice clear photos
of the bad guys, someone with a pistol would have been close enough for
a headshot --or at least put a stop to their forward movement until backup
arrived.

I get tired of the LAPD shootout being cited. There are plenty of times when
armed bad guys don't make the news because they get SHOT RIGHT THERE
RIGHT THEN by cops or Joe Civie before they even have a chance to do much
damage. It's literally "Nothing to see here, folks, move along" as the body bag
gets zippered and the pavement gets hosed off.

doubleplay
November 30, 2008, 10:11 AM
As I stated before on this thread some people are really living in a world of false security and die hard movies. Those terrorists let go and released a lot of people(in the hotels) because they were after American and foreign targets. Imagine them taking fire from some citizens in the crowd and answering back with fully automatic rifles. What would be the body count then?
Wake up people this is not couple thugs invading your home or business. These were suicidal terrorist with hand grenades and fully automatic rifles.
Has anybody here got hit by fully auto AK-47 fire and tried to respond with a handgun?

david_the_greek
November 30, 2008, 10:35 AM
well, where I don't believe a group of individuals would band together and save the day with their revolvers and hipowers (probably they'd most likely have in India), if the gunmen went room to room then a well placed string of bullets (spray them till the clip runs out) might have saved a family in a room. Now a lot of things depend on that, 1) did they throw grenades into civilian rooms or just at police forces? 2) did they work in groups of 2 or more, or did they go alone into rooms. I'm sure theres a lot more variables but eh those one seem most relevant.

I think it could be very realistic that an armed citizen could kill an attacker that came to his room, take his AK/MP5 and stay there till this thing boiled over (or till smoke and fire caused him to have to try to flee). Still a good chance he could be killed, another terrorist could here the single shots from a pistol and wonder what was going on. Obviously just speculating, but I really don't think it would be that extraordinary. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97602334 Go down the page, these guys had some MP5's, notice the double magazine set up going on.

doubleplay
November 30, 2008, 10:47 AM
Thinblackline wrote:
If reporters were getting close enough with a camera for nice clear photos
of the bad guys, someone with a pistol would have been close enough for
a headshot --or at least put a stop to their forward movement until backup
arrived.

All the photos of terrorists(very few) were taken by telephoto lenses from a distance or by security cameras. Where did you see the nice clear photos?
Backup??? What backup??? It took professionals four days to clear the situation.

Roadwild17
November 30, 2008, 10:51 AM
There is no way to know if joe blow had his ccw, what could have changed. I think on the small scale things could have changed, such as the shoot the bg that walks into your room. But:

Was this the BG that had the pineapples? If so, you just may have deprived the BGs of one of there most powerful weapons. If they all had some explosive fruit, then you have a few more and they have a few less.

What was his role in the attack? If it was to guard a door, well he cant exactly do it. If it was to clear a floor, well you just saved X number of lives.

The only certainty is if you could have intervened in this situation, you have become a key player in the attacks. Your a guy in a place with a gun and there are a LOT more people looking to kill people with guns ( BG wanting to kill cops/military and vise-versa.)

Double Naught Spy
November 30, 2008, 11:52 AM
If reporters were getting close enough with a camera for nice clear photos of the bad guys, someone with a pistol would have been close enough for a headshot --or at least put a stop to their forward movement until backup arrived.

Reporters were not being directly engaged by the terrorists because the reporters were 1) a nonthreat and 2) beneficial to the terrorists in getting out graphic depictions of what they were accomplishing...ergo helping spread the terror.

nksmfamjp
November 30, 2008, 11:56 AM
Sniper fire out of buildings wreaked havak on the US in Somalia. Yea, if there was a rifle in 20 or so windows of the streets they were walking down, yea. I think they could have been decimated. They would have taken hostages and killed, but not near as many. Sniper fire from building has always been a dangerous force. If there are 20 terrorists walking below me in the street and I start opening fire with my AR, I say I get 5 plus before they find good enough cover.

Then the others go for the 5 wounded,. . .Hmm, Do I get another couple. Sure. They will riddle the building with AK fire, but where to shoot?

In Isreal, they have suicide bomber attacks because the terrorist must kill themselves to be effective at all. Gun attacks get foiled by CCW and armed civilians. We are similar, except in SCHOOLS. Hmm, notice how our worst attacks are in schools!

Deanimator
November 30, 2008, 12:39 PM
You are thinking like a Johnson statistician in Vietnam (body counts) and terrorism doesn't exactly work like that. It is about how much of regular society can be disrupted, not by the actual body counts.
No, I'm thinking like someone who understands the role of timing in military operations.

Every minute the terrorists spend fighting a civilian is a minute lost getting to their real objective and a minute bought for security forces to reach the scene and interpose themselves between the terrorists and their objective.

Armed citizens act like the cavalry on day one of Gettysburg. They force the enemy to deploy and fight "skirmishers" instead of taking the real objective without resistance as they expect to.

The terrorists didn't have overwhelming force. They had surprise. Having to engage armed citizen destroys that surprise. Every terrorist engaged is a timetable not met. Every terrorist killed or wounded is a task heaped upon another terrorist or unaccomplished.

The terrorists disrupt society by KILLING people. Getting picked off one by one by the people they claim are "weak" hurts THEIR morale.

GEM
November 30, 2008, 01:35 PM
Sadly, I think of so many of CHL types I know, who talk the talk and read Guns and Ammo but never bother to train a bit.

Then, they complain that they aren't allowed to carry here or there. Does the CCW type who proclaims that they would intervene in some situation have the moral duty to train (this is different from state mandated training).

Or as some have told me, they are natural warriors of the testicle! Innately competent guardians of justice.

You may recall two: Tyler and the Tacoma mall - where these probably brave gentlemen came to a bad end.

Deanimator
November 30, 2008, 02:30 PM
You may recall two: Tyler and the Tacoma mall - where these probably brave gentlemen came to a bad end.
By that logic, the West Hollywood bank and Miami shootouts "prove" that law enforcement shouldn't have guns, because they're just going to be "outgunned" and shot anyway.

Thin Black Line
November 30, 2008, 02:45 PM
As I stated before on this thread some people are really living in a world of false security and die hard movies.
...
These were suicidal terrorist with hand grenades and fully automatic rifles.
Has anybody here got hit by fully auto AK-47 fire and tried to respond with a handgun?

[TBL checks self for holes and/or missing limbs. No wounds or scars noted.
Decides to respond to the new guy:]

I can say I've never been hit by AK-47 fire or any other small arms round
(other than some ricochets during practice), or ever caught a fragment in my
flesh from a rocket, mortar, or IED. Thank, God. Really. What's your point?

You will be surprised to learn that some of us here are current and former
military members, cops, security contractors, and a few Joe 6-packs who've
actually seen, been in, and put a stop to the things that you only see happen
on TV. Quite frankly, what just happened in India could happen all over Iraq
every single day, but much of it is put to a stop very quickly --and not just
by soldiers, but by regular Iraqis themselves at times. Difference between
Iraqis and the average Indian is the Iraqi populace is fully armed.

I'm the one here on THR who said not too long ago that strapping claws to a
sheep doesn't make it a predator or even a capable protector of his fellow
sheep. In this world the large majority of people are sheep (or maybe they're
cows when trampling workers at a big box store?), there are packs of hungry
wolves, and there are a few good sheepdogs. That said, there are a lot of
sheepdogs here on THR. There is going to be some barking here. Get use
to it if you plan on staying.

However:

If just talking about fighting back scares the cr@p out of you, then there's
nothing I can tell you other than to keep your head low and stay out of the
way when the wolves and sheepdogs are involved in a fight. In the meantime,
I will NOT be leaving my throat or the throats of my family bare for the wolf
to sink his teeth into. I don't care one iota if that makes you uncomfortable.
Got that?

There are plenty of military vets, police officers and "others" who have tons
of stories, pics, experience, etc. which they've shared on THR. Sit back and
read some more of them before you respond. You might learn something
which could protect you and your family.

If what you take away is that you're not up to it, then I'll reiterate again for
you to stay out of the way. Teeth and claws are dangerous.

doubleplay
November 30, 2008, 09:20 PM
Thin Black Line:
I might be new here but then again that does not mean anything.
I have been around guns and shooting long enough to learn that it takes more than posting on a public forum to really act in a life and death situation.
If I would have 2000 posts here would it make difference to you to know that I am a father to a USMC Recon Officer who have been hit by AK-47 fire more than once and talked with me countless times about tactical situations with bad guys. It is easy to talk about sheep and dogs and what not but when **** hits the fan you might be very surprised about who does what!!!
So cut the BS and let me exercise my First amendment rights about this incident. Last time I looked this was a public forum and not your playground.
Also I am still waiting your answer about the clear photos of the terrorists.
Have a nice day.

Thin Black Line
December 1, 2008, 08:37 AM
The "clear" photos? Really? Please provide a link regarding the camera
equipment because they look like they could be from a cellphone or other
small consumer handheld.

BTW, ask your USMC Recon son what he would do with a handgun in a
similar situation?

Correct, the world is not my playground, but watch where you go around
kicking sand...

GEM
December 1, 2008, 11:31 AM
By that logic, the West Hollywood bank and Miami shootouts "prove" that law enforcement shouldn't have guns, because they're just going to be "outgunned" and shot anyway.

I fail to see how you drew that conclusion. My post was that if you are going to carry a gun and proclaim how you would do XY or Z, perhaps some training would help. Get it?

The Tyler gentleman and the Tacoma gentleman got shot as they acted in unsound tactical manners. So what's your point have to do with that?

Art Eatman
December 1, 2008, 11:45 AM
Stipulate freedom to be armed: How many people actually would be armed?

I ask this because we have somewhere around 24 million people in Texas, and about 300,000 CHLs. One person in 80. And Texas is a state where the issuing agency is very cooperative.

How many CHL folks are always carrying?

Mp7
December 1, 2008, 11:53 AM
...would anyone want to live in a city like Bombay,
with everyone carrying?

ThereŽd be thousands killed before a terrorist attack even occurs

I think not.

The police should have been better armed...
...but now it will be a big security hype, like the one
that keeps me from travelin to the US nowadays...
..there will be army with FALs on the checkpoints from
now on.

Master Blaster
December 1, 2008, 02:36 PM
Hmm seems pretty simple to me,

1. If I have my gun I can shoot back and possibly stop a terrorist and survive.

2. If I dont have my gun terrorist shoots me as a I beg for my life.

I'm gonna go with option 1.
All the sheep are welcome to bleet for mercy, just don't make me bleet with you.

Would a few armed legal CCW holders have changed the outcome significantly??? I have to say I dont know.

I do know this: India's strict gun control didn't stop the terrorists from getting full auto AKs and hand grenades, and murdering hundreds of innocent people, no debate is possible there. The indian government is not blaming the NRA for this massacre. The people they shot did not have the option of armed self defense. If they were to be asked I can't imagine any of them would tell you they are happy to be dead and glad they were required to be unarmed.

A few armed citizens shooting back would have slowed the terrorists down a bit.

Master Blaster
December 1, 2008, 02:55 PM
would anyone want to live in a city like Bombay,
with everyone carrying?

ThereŽd be thousands killed before a terrorist attack even occurs

I think not.

The police should have been better armed...
...but now it will be a big security hype, like the one
that keeps me from travelin to the US nowadays...
..there will be army with FALs on the checkpoints from
now on.


They do have knives in Bombay don't they?? Yet everyone has not stabbed everyone else. I suspect that the folks you should be most worried about criminals, terrorists, have no problem getting guns.

Its their law abiding victims who have to suffer the consequences of disamament, as this incident plainly shows.

Bombay has a Israeli Embassy as well as Lubovitch life center, both are filled with Jews, care to guess why the terrorists attacked the Lubovitch center but left the Israeli embassy alone????

(HINT HEAVILY ARMED GUARDS WITH GUNS)

mordechaianiliewicz
December 1, 2008, 06:33 PM
Within this whole thing, I see no reason for argument. Should the Indians be able to arm themselves? Of course, but here is why it's not going to happen. India has a large Muslim minority. Part of the disarmament of everyone (except state security forces) was to keep the minority disarmed.

Armament would either be of the Hindu/Jain/Sikh population and not the Muslims, or of everyone. And, at that point, the Indians would worry about the Muslims trying to break away with their newly acquired weaponry.

India probably get it's Rapid Response and HRT teams. But the people will not get CCW, because the government wants to maintain control, and to do that, they have to keep everyone disarmed.

Zundfolge
December 1, 2008, 06:56 PM
Keep in mind that the North Hollywood bank robbers weren't successful because of their evil AKs with "da switch", they were successful because they wore BODY ARMOR.

Had a handful of Highroaders been armed and eating at the cafe, restaurant or in the lobby of the hotel when the shooting started, the likelihood of the terrorists getting anywhere near the number if kills they got and the length of the siege would have diminished quickly.

No, CCW isn't a magic force field that keeps everyone safe, but it is better than the option; total victim disarmament.

Even if you aren't able to halt the terrorists decisively, its better to slow them down as much as possible.

What is that canard the antis are always dragging out? If it just saves one life?

Also, terrorism isn't about tactical victories ... its about propaganda. The statement is; "See, you sheep are so easy to slaughter its clear that God is on our side"

However, when the "Sheep" that are setup for the slaughter stand up and start capping "Wolves", it doesn't matter if they still die, they aren't "Sheep" anymore, they then become heroic martyrs and the "Wolves" become dumb schmucks who underestimated their enemy. If that happens a few times then the effectiveness of the use of terrorist tactics is diminished and less attacks will happen.

Part of the disarmament of everyone (except state security forces) was to keep the minority disarmed.
The obvious foolishness of that tactic is that the minority that do not wish to obey the law will ALWAYS be armed. But yeah, Mordechai, I'm preaching to the choir here :p

mordechaianiliewicz
December 1, 2008, 07:33 PM
Oh, thanks, Zundfolge. But, I want to iterate here I am NOT trying to turn this into a Muslim vs. Whoever thing.

I am just saying, there is a political element within the law, and to understand why it is that the Indians (who have a few federalistic aspects to their government) have federalized gun control, when they have allowed quite a few other things to be kept local can only be chalked up to the Muslim minority.

The uncomfortable truth to Indian life is that India is so massive, and so different from one region to another that the government there plays a careful tune getting all the peoples of the land to stand together when they have arguably as many reasons to seperate into little states as to stay one nation.

This is the burden you bear if you are the leaders of the Indian Central Government. Giving enough leeway here or there, and enough control elsewhere.

Talk to some Indian immigrants who bothered (and still bother) to follow the politics of their former homeland. They are just as (if not moreso, in fact often moreso) partisan to one cause or another, one party or another as we are in our own little politics.

Eightball
December 1, 2008, 08:28 PM
I think CCW holders could've directed the outcome to be slightly different, but there still would've been a massacre. Multiple well-trained and well-armed attackers is just not a good contingency in which to rely on CCW. A couple? Sure. 10+, with full-autos? Uhhhhhh......... Add their grenades into the mix? A few CCWers would've merely been a good excuse to toss a 'nade their way, because let's face it--very few people have a plan for "okay, if a grenade gets tossed at me by 10+ assault-rifle wielding terrorists, I'll do X."

I think more CCW holders could have made it less bloody, but I doubt the outcome would've changed quite so much. And if the gun laws weren't so draconian, maybe the attack would've been chemical, maybe they would've had armor, maybe......maybe.......who knows.

Though, for the record, I would've done what I could with my firearm at hand against 'em.

Thin Black Line
December 2, 2008, 09:18 AM
Part of the disarmament of everyone (except state security forces) was to keep the minority disarmed.

Bingo. Give that man a non-cuban cigar.

jackdanson
December 2, 2008, 09:38 AM
They weren't just shooting on sight, they were lining people up and shooting them. If 2-3% of people were ccw the event would have been over substantially faster. I don't care if you have an m60, rpg-7 or an rpk, in close quarters (hotel room) a five shot revolver with mediocre training can be just as effective. You may be mowed down in the process, but you would have been anyway, might as well take one down with you. Multiply this 50 times and you have a substantially shortened event.

I don't think the people on here are claiming they'd pull some kind of die hard kill-all-the-terrorists move. I think people are claiming that when cornered they would rather fight than just be slaughtered. If I am carrying a pistol and five guys with automatic weapons come at me I am going to do my best to run like a little ninny to a safe area, but if I was cornered in a bathroom/hotel room I am going to die shooting, punching, biting, and eye-gouging.

This isn't comparable to North Hollywood because a.) they weren't wearing body armor and b.) they weren't trying to "get away" they were trying to slaughter.

deaconkharma
December 2, 2008, 09:44 AM
I'm with ZUND
either the answer is yes or no. If the answer is yes then making the situation less bloody and more difficult for the terrorists is the main idea. To lay down and make it easy "since you can't win" or "do much" is a non starter and that argument is just silly. If more people were armed then it CAN make a difference. Like Zund mentioned, "Even if it saves just one life", isn't that the argument the other side uses?
Concealed carry is also a deterrent / prevention measure. If you know that the place will have armed citizenry then you will go the path of least resistace and higher probability of success if you are a bad guy (that means go elsewhere like a school here in the US). It is about an abundance of things. The obvious being prevention and the other obvious being defense in case it does happen.
Also the chemicals and other attacks take longer and run more risk of getting them caught than just a run in shooting. More exposure and more time and effort and money and more chances to get busted than the active shooter deal.
Doing and not doing might mean the difference of a hole in a Pennsylvania field or a missing couple of blocks in NY. Didn't make a difference to their lives but did it make a difference in others living or dying? Make the difference.

Master Blaster
December 2, 2008, 04:12 PM
Good thing only the police have guns in India watch how they use them here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKhesCJZ_ec&watch_response

Or was it the terrorists in a stolen police van:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm09ec4Dzws&NR=1

withdrawn34
December 2, 2008, 04:22 PM
There are actually a few areas of India where a majority of people have at least a rifle; but needless to say, an attack there would not have had the emotional and psychological impact of an attack on one the largest, most diverse, and most vibrant cities like Mumbai.

I'd like to have seen these bastards try something like what they did in a Sikh majority area. They'd probably be bleeding out from a few kirpan wounds pretty quickly, if not shot.

If you enjoyed reading about "Vid: India gun control enabled Mumbai slaughter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!