Armed Terrorist Assaults in the U.S.

[NMGonzo]

Escape, evade, hopefully help a few along with me.

That is as much as I would be able to do if I am so unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[GEM]

Not to belabor this, DNS - but language usage is a social construct. Currently, 'terrorist' is ill defined with fuzzy motivations. The word is used by various sources to mean different things in accord with their goals, political or social.

Otherwise, I'm more interested in the appropriate response than worrying about whether two Islamic shooters blazing away, two home grown Aryan nation guys blazing away, or two annoyed high schoolers angry at the team and cheer leaders are called terrorists by the combined morons of CNN, Fox News, the White House and Congress.

Last, research has clearly shown that forcing folks into categories that are not well fit, leads to all kind of decision errors when dealing with them. That's why I suggest we need to understand the complexity. If one wants to oversimplify, that's is that person's style and problem.

For example, at Waco - the FBI treating it as a hostage situation as categorized in their play book, caused all kinds of errors when dealing the religiously motivated folks.

 

[JR47]

Otherwise, I'm more interested in the appropriate response than worrying about whether two Islamic shooters blazing away, two home grown Aryan nation guys blazing away, or two annoyed high schoolers angry at the team and cheer leaders are called terrorists by the combined morons of CNN, Fox News, the White House and Congress.

Unfortunately, they have to be called something. The high school students aren't going to routinely train with explosives, and automatic weapons. Terrorists, in the accepted definition, are usually para-military trained and equipped. They will operate with military small unit tactics, and are going to be more dangerous than the average Columbine, or Va. Tech, shooter.

I couldn't agree more that the legal definitions of terrorism are expanding into the realm of the ludicrous. That, though, doesn't excuse the fact that there are varying degrees of experience, motivation, and expertise attributed to different groups who may participate in the activity of violence.

Until, and unless, the political mavens of America allow the citizens the right to defend themselves in public, the DC Snipers, and the predators of various Gun-Free Zones, will continue to enjoy a modicum of success.

Where I live, we can, and do, carry CCW, and in the cars without a CCW. Rifles aren't seen a lot, though. Depending on mode of dress, I am usually armed with a .40 or .45 caliber handgun. Although, there are times when a .32 ACP is all that I can carry. In the vehicle glove-box is a heavier weapon.

Traveling to and from the range, or hunting, there will be rifles or shotguns aboard. Totally legal. However, where I am is not exactly a hot bed of terrorism/public violence, or school shootings. In fact, MOST of us don't live in areas like that.

 

[GEM]

The Columbine attack was designed actually to be an explosive attack. However, like the Time Sq. attack - the actors didn't know what they were doing.

When their multiple bombs didn't work - then the Columbine duo turned to gun fire.

The expertise to make home made bombs is wide spread now. If you look at the history of the US - been plenty of homegrown bombers.

But we are off on a tangent - I agree that we should be able to carry and that we should have training - such that you have some idea of what to do if you face such a situation. Two people with semiauto handguns and some knowledge could have changed Mumbai.

 

[smince]

In fact, MOST of us don't live in areas like that.

...until it happens in your city...

 

[mbt2001]

Listen, the terrorists can botch an attack through incompetence and do virtually everything to get caught alive and WE are terrorized (time square bomber / underwear bomber). Right now, the lawyers are deciding about Miranda rights, for "suspected terrorists". Over two botched attacks.

Yeah, we learned zip from 9/11.

The way to stop terrorists is to stop being terrorized by them. If I die in the course of my enjoying my American freedoms and rights... those are the risks. I dunno how else to put it. I would rather die in a fiery crash than continue to be subjected to the "position" every time I think about getting on a plane.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Strategies and Tactics, folks... not Politics.

Lay off the politics. Or you are going to kill this thread.

lpl

 

[uspJ]

i hope everyone ( f.b.i.,c.i.a, n.s.a., etc) doesn't assume that if terrorists do in fact carry out armed attacks that it will only occur in major cities. many suburban areas would be prime targets due to smaller police forces, and smaller/less equipped medical facilities. it would take alot longer for a small town police force who's patrolmen double as swat members to meet, organize and execute a sweep of the area than a major metropolitan area who has a dedicated swat team/s, especially if multiple attacks were carried out simulataneously.

as far as a ccw citizen being caught in an attack i would say that his/her best option would be to escape and evade, and only use their weapon to cover their escape if necessary. even a highly skilled and trained person armed with a handgun would not fair well against multiple attackers of any skill level, add the confusion of the event and the number of people who will be running in all directons it would be nearly impossible to get a clean shot where innocent life would not be put in further danger.

 

[shockwave]

The idea that people must carry a "fighting handgun" is ludicrous. The choice is more accurately carrying the kind of weapon that you WILL keep on you versus carrying something capable of battling your way against trained, heavily armed, and motivated teams, until you can reach a fighting rifle.

Completely agree. The statistics are overwhelmingly supportive of this. Some 99+ percent of successful uses of a handgun for self defense require no shots fired. This means that in the rare event you have to draw your weapon, chances are slim you'll actually need to fire it. A situation requiring more firepower than a 5- or 6-shot revolver is on a par with being hit by lightning. So as much as I respect Suarez's opinions, in this I think he's a bit overboard.

There seems to be some confusion here about what a CCW is for. If a gunfight breaks out in a mall (a crazy, a criminal, a terrorist, whatever), it is not my job to be the first responder and end the conflict with my handgun. Of course, no question, if there's a clean shot and a chance to end it then playing hero may be possible. But the purpose of the CCW is to get me and my loved ones to safety. Law enforcement and SWAT have the job of securing the scene.

We are very lucky in the US to have so many CHLs issued and so many citizens who are armed. This does present the criminal with additional challenges. Nevertheless, "terrorism," as such, is nothing new. It didn't start on 9/11 - it's been with us since before this country was founded. It's just a part of American life. Unlike many, I think of it as a law enforcement issue. There is no such thing as a "war on terror." There are criminals, and nearly every major terrorist incident has been thwarted by plain, basic, standard police work.

 

[MisterMike]

I agree with shockwave. We may harbor fantasies about being the guy (or gal) to thwart a mass shooting, but the fact is that, absent incredible timing and a few very well-placed shots, it's just never going to happen.

It would be more than awesome if, in the face of an event like this, dozens of legal CCers pulled out their weapons of choice and took down the team of bad guys. But, again, not likely. So, what you really need to be focused on is saving yourself and your loved ones. That generally means finding effective cover and a means of escape, and would only involve using your handgun to protect yourself as a last resort.

On 9/11 I was in my office in downtown Chicago, but because of my job and some circumstances that I won't go into here, I had to stay for several hours after the evacuation order. Making my way home through a largely abandoned city was one of the more peculiar and spookier episodes of my life. No one really knew much of what was going on, except that the East Coast had been attacked and that Chicago was a likely target . . . of whatever. My focus was not on developing scenarios in which I was going to take on Al Qaeda shooters, but rather on how I could evade whatever bad juju I might encounter. My feeling is that evasion and escape would be the paramount focus if it ever came to a Mumbai style situation.

 

[smince]

Completely agree. The statistics are overwhelmingly supportive of this. Some 99+ percent of successful uses of a handgun for self defense require no shots fired.

You guys keep carrying your 5-shot J's stuffed in a pocket. Hope that works out for ya'...

I'll keep carrying my G19 with a reload.

 

[uspJ]

Completely agree. The statistics are overwhelmingly supportive of this. Some 99+ percent of successful uses of a handgun for self defense require no shots fired.

very true, but that less than 1 percent still worries me.

A situation requiring more firepower than a 5- or 6-shot revolver is on a par with being hit by lightning. So as much as I respect Suarez's opinions, in this I think he's a bit overboard.

i never understood how one moment someone (not quoting shockwave) will say that it's not uncommon for someone to be shot multiple times stop their attack and then still advocate carrying a j-frame. don't get me wrong i love a nice snub as much as the next guy, but i would rather carry something with a higher capacity than 5 shots.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Sigh.

Strategies and Tactics, folks. In other words, software.

NOT HARDWARE...

lpl

 

[GEM]

At the NTI one year, we didn't use our hicap semis. We were given revolvers with few reload rounds. Since in the simulatons, there were multiple attackers or moving dummies - folks quickly ran out of ammo and had to conserve it.


The issue is that it is a low probability you will need a gun or shoot a gun. It's a lower probability that you will enter into an intensive gun fight.

However, the software is based on your evaluation of risk. It's like intro stats, at what probability level do you make the decision cut. What is the cost for planning for a more intensive fight?

If you are belt carrying with a cover garment, there is little cost in my experience, in a hot enviroment for wearing something like a G26 or 19 with an extra mag.

A cover garment can be a floppy lt. weight shirt over a tee.

If you pocket carry - then a J works well but I find no problem of throwing a reload in another pocket. Dockers, cargo pants can look good and hide the gun.

You have to decide if you want to be supplied for the less likely end of the gun fight intensity distribution. So there' no yes - no answer to a continuous distribution of risk.

 

[smince]

Strategies and Tactics, folks.

Lee, you and I may disagree. But I have to say that I believe which hardware a person chooses (and why) is a part of one's overall strategy and tactics.

I'm going to carry the hardware that best supports my software programming.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Fine. I have no argument there. But organ-measuring contests related to who carries what are unproductive at best. And we are not going to sink to that here.

It's an improvement in my book if we can get more law-abiding citizens to carry a gun, any gun, train with it and be prepared to use it effectively if necessary. I don't care if someone carries a pair of howdah pistols, if they are good with them and use them appropriately.

We do not stress hardware over software here in S&T. The whole wide world wants to do it that way, because you CAN buy hardware in a box, while software requires time, sweat, blood, work, money, humility and a good many other things far too few gun owners and shooters are willing to invest in themselves.

Our purpose here is to foster the development of the individual in the direction of greater capacity to effectively defend self, loved ones and others. Insisting that carrying a bigger pistol with more ammunition is the only acceptable approach to that end is not what we are going to do here. I know that is not what you said, but some will try to interpret it that way.

It may be that a larger capacity pistol supports your training, and there's nothing wrong with that. I too have taken pistol classes that stressed applying multiple rapid rounds per target- Farnam and his 'zipper,' Andy Stanford's surgical speed shooting, etc. I do not disagree with those tactics. My wife and I have five Glock 19s between us, I shot a Glock 17 in my last formal class with Louis Awerbuck last summer and my wife shot a 19 in that same class.

I am not about to begin to tell people what to carry, and frankly, neither is anyone else here. Just getting people to legally and safely carry a pistol and train with it is a good enough beginning for me. We are not going to commence arguments that any given person who carries a snubby or the semiauto equivalent is underarmed.

People are not underarmed because of what is in their holsters. People are underarmed because of what is NOT established in their mindset or their skillset. And merely carrying more ammo will not fix that.

Regards.

lpl

 

[smince]

People are not underarmed because of what is in their holsters. People are underarmed because of what is NOT established in their mindset or their skillset. And merely carrying more ammo will not fix that.

Regards.

lpl

I completely agree with you on that point

 

[trol79]

In germanistan or an other EUROstyle Democratur an mumbai raid would be DEVASTATING due to the ongoing disarming of the people. thus the same guys who press foth the tightening of gun & self-defense laws are the same who encourage islamic extremists & terrorists. Am I the only one who thinks of this beeing scary?

 

[JDoe]

The police, bless their pointy little heads, are quite capable of handling the Mumbai attack styles. There's a world of difference between terrorists armed with readily available rifles and hand-guns, and the jihadists our troops face in the Middle East. There, the terrorists use RPGs,belt-fed weapons, grenades, and the likes. Here, those items would be extremely difficult to obtain, and train with.

According to Ayoob would be terrorists could be bringing some harder to acquire items, including explosives and crew served weapons, in with them. From Massad Ayoob's June 2, 2010 blog in Backwoods Home Magazine DANGER ON THE BORDER supported in part by this news story.

...I’ve seen intelligence briefings that indicate Al Qaeda members are among those who have penetrated our border via this route, assisted in some cases by Mexican drug cartels. There is strong evidence to suggest that they’ve brought in hardware that includes crew-served weapons and explosive materials.

Picture Mumbai: a handful of commandoes roaming the streets, machine-gunning every innocent person in sight with AK47s, setting fire to heavily occupied buildings as they go. Now picture it in this country, combined with massive explosions at power plants and communications centers within the target communities, to kick off the attack. Then, picture it happening in multiple cities at once across the United States when Osama bin Laden “pulls the trigger” on the attack...

And just as an FYI for those who have not seen this before here is a comment from the Nordyke v. King decision where Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judge said on page 4508/4509...

...We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived...

 

[Girodin]

A "heavily armed" couple was just detained trying to enter a military base with "rifle type weapons." No word on what they were up to but it made me think of this thread.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_re_us/us_macdill_weapons

 

[duns]

We do not stress hardware over software here in S&T. The whole wide world wants to do it that way, because you CAN buy hardware in a box, while software requires time, sweat, blood, work, money, humility and a good many other things far too few gun owners and shooters are willing to invest in themselves.

Does make me think though that maybe I should relegate my J-frame to backup gun and carry my 10+1 9mm as primary if there is a credible possibility of being involved in a terrorist incident. Also makes me think that open carry in those states that don't currently allow it (like mine) would be a sensible policy so that we are not limited in what we can carry by concealment considerations.

 

[killchain]

I have been putting serious thought into putting an SU-16 in a waterproof bag in my truck box, just in case.

 

[mbt2001]

Strategies:

1.) Get a work kit / bob together. Make sure that it has some food, clothing, and other odds and ends so that you can survive a few days being trapped at work. There are a lot of reasons that you might be trapped there, floods, natural hazards, attacks, so the is really just common sense.

2.) Make sure that you and your loved ones have some kind of communication plan and action plan in the absence of communication. My wife and I have iphones, which gives us an easy to use phone, text, e-mail system. I would like to have handheld radios, but I don't have the money to buy what would need, but if you do, then get two handhelds and access to a repeater and you can cover a large area. Movement and communication is pretty important. Think of what might happen if your kids snagged a ride and are arriving home, as you are making your way into the Danger Zone to pick them up...

3.) Weapons are great. Get some. But realize that a thief, robber, or murder is attacking YOU. Terrorist are attacking US. They aren't going to be as determined in target selection i.e. they will most likely not chase anyone down running from the scene. Also, they are not likely to care about witnesses, most likely they want terrified witnesses. They are just there to inflict carnage of opportunity.

4.) Your job is to be aware of your surroundings, have contingency plans, have communication plans, have duress codes, prepare your home with lighting and burglar thwarting strategies.

After all that, *** can anyone do? Again, notice that weapons do not figure all the strongly into virtually any preparation.

 

[smince]

Fixed your post for you:

Again, notice that weapons do not figure all the strongly into virtually any of my own personal preparation.

They are an important part of mine. Sorry if you disagree

 

[Erik]

Some interesting thoughts. When it comes, hopefully the folks near to it/them will have readied themselves, prepared and ready.