Foiled Canadian Terror attack included mass public shooting plan

[Deanimator]

The Shooter(s) will have the advantage of surpise, almost certainly a rifle, more ammo (remember he doesn't have to carry it home with him ), planned and practiced his/her part in the attack, and possibly numbers.

Why do you think that in a future event events are going to turn out differently

Armed civilians also have the advantage of surprise. Jihadis in particular have the same disease that the Japanese fascists did. They don't believe we'll fight. The foreign ones come from places where civilians are nothing more than reactive targets.

And speaking of the Japanese, there was radar at Pearl Harbor and at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Do you think they had similar results?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

They need to try the mass shooting thing in Texas, first. You know, just to see how it works out...

"Hi, I'm Tom Schieffer with the Nightly News. Tonight in Dallas, an Islamic terrorist was shot in excess of 60 times. He is reported to have pulled out a gun and shouted, 'Allahu ak...' before being gunned down by multiple passersby. Authorities are awaiting the results of DNA testing in hope of identifying the suspect, whose bullet riddled body could not be identified through visual inspection OR dental records."

That's great! Just what I was thinking too. No wonder they chose Canada for something like that. If they chose the United States they'd have to restrict their activities to one of the various "no gun zones." You know ... schools. Those are the only places where they can be absolutely sure, thanks to our wise rulers, of having plenty of uninterrupted time to shoot lots of helpless people without any risk of being blown away before they've finished their work.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Deanimator Quote:
A group of Jews near their synagogue.

Right after 9/11, the synagog of a friend here in Cleveland organized an armed defense. There was ALWAYS at least one armed individual at services, cop or civilian, usually more.

Don't let the Schumers and Metzenbaums fool you. I know quite a few Jews, and the majority of them haven't got the slightest inclination to be shot down helplessly.

(Sorry, I have not figured out yet how to quote properly on this forum)

Deanimator,

My point was that it would be illegal in Georgia (where one of the jihadists linked to these Canadians was arrested, in fact, I think that is how the authorities found out about the guys in Canada). There is a law preventing anybody from carrying "to or while at" a church or church function.

We had a highly publicized incident last week where a nut was attacking Jews walking to synagogue. Criminals know about the victim disarmament laws.

 

[Deanimator]

My point was that it would be illegal in Georgia (where one of the jihadists linked to these Canadians was arrested, in fact, I think that is how the authorities found out about the guys in Canada). There is a law preventing anybody from carrying "to or while at" a church or church function.

In three words, "They don't care."

Anybody who wouldn't arm themselves under such circumstances, regardless of the law, isn't right in the head. But then I've had people tell me that they wouldn't violate a gun control law to defend themselves because "They don't want to get in trouble." None of them could explain to me how a court date was more trouble than a bullet in the head.

 

[yucaipa]

They won't be wearing vests, because they want to die as they kill infidels.

That's true, however the ones in Iraq have discovered drugs. They are so amped out that they take multiple hits before the lights go out.

Would the ones in Canada (or coming to the US) copy that pattern ?

Many CCW's (based on their level of training) would stop after putting 1 or 2 into the target, a committed, wounded suicidal murderer could still do a lot of damage on this way to Paradise.

 

[sparx]

Anybody who wouldn't arm themselves under such circumstances, regardless of the law, isn't right in the head. But then I've had people tell me that they wouldn't violate a gun control law to defend themselves because "They don't want to get in trouble." None of them could explain to me how a court date was more trouble than a bullet in the head.

As the saying goes...

Better to be judged by 12 than buried by 6!

 

[Manedwolf]

Many CCW's (based on their level of training) would stop after putting 1 or 2 into the target, a committed, wounded suicidal murderer could still do a lot of damage on this way to Paradise.

Not what I was taught. How do you know you hit them from a distance? And if they're still up and still have a weapon in their hand, they're still "Threat", so if you quit after two, that's a good way to get killed. I always thought it was "until they stop being a threat", whether that's them going down, or dropping the weapon and running away wounded.

 

[davec]

Where did they plan on acquiring the firearms?

 

[Infidel]

Uhmm....No offense intended but I am aware of 2 (two) mass/public shootings that people who were carrying at the time of the shooting intervened.

One in Texas with a shooter with anAK-Clone (semi IIRC) and body armour. The man who was carrying was killed and did not wound the shooter IIRC. Definetly did not stop/kill the shooter. ....

That's a very poor characterisation of the incident at the Smith County courthouse in Tyler, Texas. Mark Wilson, the man who was killed trying to stop the shooter, actually DID foil the attack. He hit the shooter a couple of times, but the shooter was wearing two vests. He also wounded the shooter below the vests.

The Tyler Police and the Smith County Sheriff publicly credited Mark Wilson for saving one of the shooter's targets (his son (he killed his wife)), and for causing the shooter to break off the attack. My cousin, who was arguing a case inside the courthouse at the time of the incident, related the same thing secondhand, and my other cousin, who watched the entire thing from his 4th-floor office window less than a block away, also said that the shooter immediately abandoned the attack and started to flee when Mark Wilson made his heroic effort.

 

[Lonestar.45]

A few armed jihadists could wreak severe havoc just about anywhere, CCW area or not.

Me and my Kahr would be getting out of dodge real fast unless there was no choice to do so, or if it looked like I had a remote chance of doing any good (meaning, clear shot to the head from cover). Anyone who has seen the Hollywood bank shootout video ought to think twice about going up against determined gunmen with rifles, 30rd mags, and body armor with just a 9mm or any pistol for that matter.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

A few armed jihadists could wreak severe havoc just about anywhere, CCW area or not.

Me and my Kahr would be getting out of dodge real fast unless there was no choice to do so, or if it looked like I had a remote chance of doing any good (meaning, clear shot to the head from cover). Anyone who has seen the Hollywood bank shootout video ought to think twice about going up against determined gunmen with rifles, 30rd mags, and body armor with just a 9mm or any pistol for that matter.

Been carrying a concealed handgun pretty regularly since the early 1980s. Usually a full sized 1911, but during some periods I carried smaller guns. Anyway, my nephew and I were walking in a mall this past December together, and he asked me what I'd do if a terrorist took out an AK and started spraying the place down. He wanted to know if I'd use my CCW to take him out. I told him truthfully, that if there was any chance to get away, that's what I'd do first. If it went down right in front of me, I think I would instinctively draw and fire, however, since getting away would be much less likely otherwise, and at close range I'd have a really good chance against an AK with my .45.

That said, if you had to take a shot at a distance with a handgun, I think a good trigger-tuned 1911 .45 would be one of the guns you'd want to have on you. A good target revolver in .357 Magnum would be even better, but then who carries those concealed on a regular basis?

 

[yucaipa]

Not what I was taught. How do you know you hit them from a distance? And if they're still up and still have a weapon in their hand, they're still "Threat", so if you quit after two, that's a good way to get killed. I always thought it was "until they stop being a threat", whether that's them going down, or dropping the weapon and running away wounded

I should have said, "lack of training" many (not all) do just enough to meet the requirements (get the permit) and thats it. Not smart but theres a lot of them out there.

 

[longeyes]

is there some kind of DNA test we can use at the airport to figure out if someone is muslim or not? How exactly would we prevent a clever terrorist, under this policy, from simply saying "I'm Christian" on the immigration forms?

You don't need DNA tests, just a pack of blasphemous flashcards.

 

[beerslurpy]

I think you guys are being foolish. The first step towards the grave is to underestimate the capability and mindset of a heavily armed enemy. Dismissing them as a bunch of suicidal clowns is unwise IMO.

Assuming that jihadis will attack in a suicidal and foolish manner in the hopes of being killed sets us up for the nasty surprise of them not doing so. On the other hand, assuming they will fight intelligently and try to inflict maximum casualties before eventually succumbing to reinforcements sets us up for the pleasant surprise of them suiciding against CCWers.

 

[NukemJim]

Mark Wilson made his heroic effort.

Absolutely. Yes I agree 100%.

I have only read about the instance and was not there. I believe I stated

One in Texas with a shooter with anAK-Clone (semi IIRC) and body armour. The man who was carrying was killed and did not wound the shooter IIRC. Definetly did not stop/kill the shooter. ....

I've only reviewed five or six articles on this [ suggestions on links would be appreciated] (Just finished a 14 hour shift working shorthanded and am fried ) the best of the ones I read had Wilson "Possibly wounding" the shooter in the pelvis. I may very well have been wrong on that. That is why I posted

IIRC

. As to not stopping/killing the shooter, perhaps I am misunderstanding something here. I understood that Wilson shot the shooter multiple times with hits on the body armour, probably hitting him in the pelvis. Did not the later the shooter fire at the police ? Several of the sources stated that the police fired the shot that killed the shooter. Is that wrong? I am not being sarcastic here. I will be happy to hit any links on this. I may have misunderstood or not remember correctly.

I will look into this somemore after I get sleep. Since this is a call weekend I have no idea when that will be. I hate call

NukemJim

 

[coylh]

Plan on being hit by friendly fire if you decide to skirmish, unless you happen to be a blond woman carrying a baby.

 

[Mannlicher]

Carebare opines:

Instead of wondering what weapon to use to defend ourselves against this kind of attack, why don't we be proactive and simply ban the purchase, possession or transporting of firearms capable of using high-capacity magazines and rapid fire?

If we get started now, there may be time to collect them all up before the jihadis can regroup for another try.

so maybe we should just stand still and die? Being proactive regarding your personal safety is a good thing. No government yet has been able to prevent radical muslim terror attacks. A fellow is pretty much on his own when that happens. The opinions of others will vary, but thats mine, and I am sticking to it.