1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The following is from Massad's subscription emails

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by gym, Apr 28, 2011.

  1. gym

    gym member

    Dec 9, 2007
    I am quoting in part from tonights email, I hope that's ok, as I have the upmost respect for his insights into our countrys future, and have thought this of late also, trying not to be an alarmist but this validates my feelings, as to why the terorist buzz has been at the low level for some time, and I hope the mods leave it in the general topics scince it's going to be us, that will have a lot to do with possiblly stopping this and preparing for the possibility even though we all hope it never happens, it is gun related as you can get, The end are my words where i write, end quote
    Quote in part:
    The general consensus of police, military, and national intelligence is that it’s only a matter of time before this nation experiences an incident reminiscent of Beslan or Mumbai: armed, trained, committed terrorists massacring the innocent with automatic weapons and explosives. My old friend Jeff Chudwin, Chief of Police in Olympia Fields, Illinois and one of the nation’s leading authorities on such things, gave a compelling presentation on the topic.
    At a time when we need more, better-trained and -equipped cops than ever, we’re seeing police layoffs, hiring freezes, and budget cuts. Many of the presenters addressed how to deliver quality training with less money for equipment, ammunition, and pay for officers attending.
    For the private citizen, what all this is saying is to be prepared for disaster. Remember Hurricane Katrina, just six short years ago. In a nation where there are only about 800,000 cops to serve an estimated 320,000,000 citizens, it’s absolutely true that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
    Jeff Chudwin warns that it’s only a matter of time before Beslan and Mumbai scenarios are acted out in the USA by enemies of our country. "end quote"
    "We used to hear be aware and stay alert", this administration for some reason refuses to address this, I am not sure why.IMO, We the people must be prepared to fend off a suprise attack, or series of attacks designed to disrupt and confuse the people of this great country by a foreign power or those who act in accordance with an enemy of the USA. Just my thoughts.
    As we know it doesn't take much to knock out power, or take down the internet, and stop the markets from functioning, a coodinated attack even small in stature could throw us into a state of dissaray and panic. I surelly don't want to over react to this stuff but I would say something feels like it's coming. Just remember what crazy old chaney tried to drum in our heads, report anything suspicious to law enforcement. It's that one guy who sees that little thing that seems off, that can save a lot of heartache.
  2. eqlzr

    eqlzr New Member

    Jan 28, 2011
    Not to minimize the significance or seriousness of what you are saying, but honestly if you observe around my SoCal town, what you tend to see very near my house are massive crackdowns by police officers (at least 10-15 motorcycle and patrol car cops per mile sometimes) not on drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, terrorists, thugs, cons, thieves or robbers (all of which are more common than cockroaches), but instead on people talking on their cellphones.

    We have huge, fancy and presumably expensive LED scoreboard-like signs hanging over all of our freeways now. Occasionally they are used for "Amber Alert" type messages (such and such child taken, look for a '88 blue Toyota Corolla), but far more often, instead of providing helpful info about traffic or whatnot, they are used to threaten motorists ("Click It or Tickit", or "$159+ for texting! It's not worth it!"). Who the H paid for those signs if it wasn't the tax-paying, hardworking commuters?

    IMHO, all this is incredibly <removed>. Honestly, do we need more cops, or just better priorities?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 29, 2011
  3. LawScholar

    LawScholar Member

    Dec 26, 2010

    Cracking down on cell phone use is the same thing, scientifically, as cracking down on drunk driving.

    The most recent studies suggest talking on the phone makes an individual about 4-6x as likely to have an accident. That's about the same as drunk driving. Texting and driving increases crash likelihood by 23x because it involves extended periods of eye contact away from the road (usually covering hundreds of feet with thousands of pounds of steel automobile)

    I don't feel like dying so a teeny-bopper can text "lol". I have no problem with such crackdowns.

    As for Mossad's point, we pro-gun people have made the same argument from the start, and it stands here: An armed society need not fear such things. If 4 terrorists open up on 50 people waking along, and a handful of those people are CCW holders, they can at least have a fighting chance.
  4. RS14

    RS14 Member

    Sep 14, 2009
    There's an argument to be made for a well-equipped and staffed police force, but I don't think terrorism is that argument.

    Firstly, terrorist attacks are rare. They capture much attention, certainly, but you're more likely to be murdered for other reasons.

    Over the last 10 years in the US, for instance, terrorists attacks have killed roughly 3000 people. There have been roughly 170,000 murders in the US during this period.

    In India (discounting regions with active insurgencies, i.e. the northeast; Jammu and Kashmir), terrorist attacks have killed very roughly around 1,200, about half in the south by the PWG. The murder rate seems to suggest roughly 330,000 murders over this period.

    I'm not going to compute figures for Ossetia, again because they're experiencing an active insurgency, which isn't in any way comparable to the US situation.

    On this basis alone, the argument for law enforcement should center on ordinary crime, rather than headline-grabbing but very rare terrorist attacks.

    Secondly, ordinary law-enforcement is for the most part impotent in the event of terrorist attacks--they can help provide first aid and clean up the mess, but local law enforcement doesn't have the intelligence network to look into future threats. Police couldn't have stopped 9/11, and they're unlikely to stop a bombing. The Beslan school, as were the hotels in Mumbai was stormed by Russian Special Forces, not local law enforcement. Local law enforcement did make a difference at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus.

    In general, law enforcement funds are probably better spent on murder cases and such, since they have the potential to be so much more effective there. A mere 5% reduction in the national murder rate would save more lives than a 100% reduction in the terrorism rate. And while police can be an important part of the response to terrorist attacks, good intelligence work is probably more effective in anticipating attacks and stopping them before they occur.
  5. twofifty

    twofifty Participating Member

    Apr 21, 2007
    33,000 or so die each year in motor vehicle traffic accidents. The number of deaths decreases most years even though the number of drivers and miles driven increases.

    This suggests that legislative and police efforts are changing people's behaviour for the better. The vehicles are also designed with survivability in mind.
  6. Shawn Dodson

    Shawn Dodson Senior Member

    Dec 28, 2002
  7. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Senior Member

    Jun 19, 2006
    SLC, Utah
    Please note that quite a few current members of D.C. and the F.O.P. think that we gun-owners are terrorists.
  8. Averageman

    Averageman Participating Member

    Oct 26, 2009
    First responders are relatively irrelivant to a Mumbai/Belsan type attack.
    If you read the reports on Belsan, it was so well planned that any attempts to remove the Terrorists resulted in more bloodshed.
    Mumbai Terrorists operated through radio contact with a Command and Control that essentially watched India's version of CNN and moved the Terrorists based upon immeadiate news feeds.
    Are we ready for this? Nope!
    That being said, I have noticed I am far more likely to be killed by someone on a cell phone not paying attention than a Terrorist bullet.
    I do also agree that some of the way LEO's operate is more in line with racking up traffic fines than providing a force that protects the general public.
  9. eqlzr

    eqlzr New Member

    Jan 28, 2011
    Maybe, but we're easy targets for LE cuz generally speaking we're polite and pay our fines. :)
  10. gym

    gym member

    Dec 9, 2007
    I didn't mean fo this to get on the path of traffic and texting, sorry I must need to re phrase. Usually when these attacks take place, even in the form of a non-terrorist attack, "just for argument's sake, it's the off duty cop, or civillian with a ccw that is on the scene when it happens and they are likelly to engage first, should an organised attack shch as this happen at a movie or mall. I'm just saying watch yur 6, and carry your weapon all the time where legal, because it's been a long time overdue and signs point to some sort of a similar thing occuring here from the chatter being heard.
  11. Grey_Mana

    Grey_Mana Active Member

    Jun 25, 2008
    what do you think 9/11 was?

    The Mumbai attack death toll was 195 (according to Bing).
    The Luby's Massacre in 1991 ended with 23 dead, 20 more wounded.
    The columbine shooting in 1999 resulted in 13 dead, 21 wounded.
    The Fort Hood shooting killed 13 and wounded 30 more.

    9/11, we lost 2,752 victims in NYC and 184 in Virginia.

    Lessons: the next terrorist/massacre will be in a gun-free zone (a school, an airport / airplane, a city like DC or a state like Maryland where regular people aren't allowed to bear arms.

    We've been luck over the past 50 years, that we've only faced relatively stupid enemies on US soil. On Sunday December 7, 1941, we lost 2,350 with an additional 1,178 wounded at Pearl Harbor. No need to cite foreign examples.
  12. jiminhobesound

    jiminhobesound Member

    Jan 8, 2011
    I could care less about your academic argument regarding statistics of death. This is the United States, we the people have the right to be free from worry and oppression. Terrorism offends the rights of the people. Since our LEOs are not capable of stopping acts of terror we as citizens must be prepared. Finally, your statistics are seriously flawed because the do not address how may plots were foiled by our LEOs.
  13. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Jan 3, 2003
    0 hrs east of TN
    Yes we are over-reacting if we put a national policy in place that limits our freedom.

    No Mumbai type attack has much relevance nationally unless we exaggerate it's national importance. We're a nation of 320,000,000. A few "martyrs" with machine guns are not going to do enough real damage to affect the nation if we don't fall prey to terror.

    OTOH, as an individual or family such an attack could have real catastrophic consequences and individually and personally being prepared to avoid, escape or react to such a local event should be thought about.

    Crippling ourselves (or smothering) with fear on a national level just isn't reasonable.

    The swath of destruction left by this weeks tornadoes is an example. For the communities and individuals who suffered death and destruction it was catastrophic. For the nation it was tragic. But the nation barely missed a step and the states and most of the communities are still functioning. The families and communities that were most hard hit are the ones who experienced the real impact.
  14. burley

    burley New Member

    Jul 7, 2010
    Massad's e-mail reads like paronoid ramblings from a firearms salesman using fearmongering to make some money imho. You know what? I'm going to live my life while I can, Massad, zombie hunters, crazy old chaney etal be damned. I might even go outside and walk around in the sun today. What an experience!
  15. Loosedhorse

    Loosedhorse member

    Aug 4, 2008
    eastern Massachusetts
    And 40 in PA.
  16. lexjj

    lexjj New Member

    Jan 15, 2009
    Kansas City, MO
    We do not need more law enforcement in this country. We particularly do not need more militarized law enforcement in this country. We especially do not need more fantasy-based law enforcement in this country.

    This line of thinking has done more to destroy the constitutional protections of our country than any terrorist could ever inflict.

    Let's just turn all cops into SWAT teams, so we can serve more no-knock warrants at 3 am for misdemeanor offenses. And then, we can use those SWAT teams to "forfeit" all of the "perp's" assets to buy more awesome toys that we can then justify buying by using in even more inappropriate situations.
  17. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Mentor

    Feb 23, 2006
    Exactly. Instead of focusing on outside threats they want to take away our ability to defend ourselves and leave it up to the 1 cop per 400 citizens (using the OP's stats) for protection. No thanks.
  18. Pistol Ranch

    Pistol Ranch Member

    Jan 26, 2011
    Katy Texas
    Reading Ayoob would leave you to believe that he uses a new carry pistol every week.
    Snake oil. "The sky is falling":uhoh:

  19. gdesloge

    gdesloge Member

    Dec 12, 2008
    "A few "martyrs" with machine guns are not going to do enough real damage to affect the nation if we don't fall prey to terror."

    An EMP attack could, if effectively conducted, affect every citizen of the nation.

  20. hermannr

    hermannr Active Member

    Jan 23, 2011
    Okanogan Highlans
    The terrorists have already won...look at how they managed to disrupt normal live and freedoms here via 9/11. Have to have a passport to get back into the US from Canada, you have to be kidding. The whole TSA garbage at the Airports. If they had allowed passengers and pilots to carry prior to 9/11, it could not have happened. think about it.

    The next attack (and here I do agree, there will most likely be another sometime relatively soon) will probably be in either NYC or Chicago. Not only the biggest bang per body, the least defended.

    That is: the least possible chance of encountering an armed civilian that has not been identified by the operators. They cannot handle having unknowns if they remotely expect to succeed.

    To the other part. I do not like the signs either, however, I do like the idea of making texting while driving illegal. Texting while driving is most definately dangerous to everyone else on the road. If you kill yourself that is your problem, just don't involve anyone else.

    If you have to text or use your cell phone, pull over, stop in a safe place and do it...not while moving.

Share This Page