SHTF scenario - terrorist snipers

[possenti]

This may have been discussed at length during the Beltway sniper shootings, but during those tense times I'm sure everyone feared more "copycat" shootings. I sure did. The DC-area snipers may have been Islamic sympathizers, but they didn't exactly qualify as foreign terrorists. It would seem to be attractive to foreign Islamic extremists to carry out such an operation against civilians on American soil, especially with several shooters spread out in different areas of the country. It would be much cheaper and easier than the 9-11 attack, but it would spread just as much fear. I'm sure they've thought of it - why don't they? Except for the recent looney toon in the Columbus area, there have been no more such incidents.

I was taking a shower earlier - where most of my "deep thinking" occurs, and I wondered WHY this isn't happening. My theory is that terrorists fear more Americans would eventually arm themselves against such a threat, and it wouldn't be successful - just as the alleged Japanese General said there was "an armed American behind every blade of grass" when they considered a mainland invasion during WWII. If such a scenario were to happen, I predict that more gun control wouldn't even be considered an option by the general populace, although Feinswine and Co. would still propose it. But would big-city urbanites vigilantly take up arms against such a terrorist threat?

Anyway, that's my theory. What do you all think?

 

[orangeninja]

I think that the greater cooperation between law enforcement agencies would shut down an operation like that decidedly faster in dense urban areas. Counter Sniper tactics by armed vigilanties would be a catastrophe.

 

[DMK]

If such a scenario were to happen, I predict that more gun control wouldn't even be considered an option by the general populace,

Think so huh? How do you think the gun contol lapdogs, ehem, I mean national media would spin it?

I'd bet every story written would include some kind of slam against "Assault Weapons", "Sniper Rifles", "Gun Show Loopholes" and "Armor Piercing FMJ bullets that can shoot through schools". With the "bloodbaths on American street corners", the general public will swallow this garbage hook, line and sinker and gladly accept more gun control.

And you know what? Many gun owners would be right there with them chanting "you don't need an AK to hunt deer" and "they'll never come after my skeet gun".

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Counter Sniper tactics by armed vigilanties would be a catastrophe.

How so?

I was out most nights during the killings, around what I thought were likely areas, and I know a lot of other folks were as well.

My first resort was going to be my cell phone, then the rifle. I think most people were of a similar responsible mind.

Your comment unfairly slams us vigilanties in the same way opponents of concealed carry go on about "blood in the streets"

 

[orangeninja]

"Your comment unfairly slams us vigilanties in the same way opponents of concealed carry go on about "blood in the streets"

1.) More people shooting at a moving vehicle equals misses, which means stray fire, which means collateral damage, which means gun control.

2.) Nobody should take the law into their own hands....I know it is tempting, and at times it is life or death in which you have no choice and self defense is FULLY justified OR it is on YOUR property, but an armed crowd of villagers with torches will only ignite about a thousand "false positives" and when law enforcement now has to split their efforts sorting between looking for the sniper and maintaining civil control.

3.) Innocent "vigilantes" (by innocent I mean not the sought after sniper) will be arrested and possibly mistaken for the sniper...thus the sniper goes free. I.E. false positive

4.) Slowing down police will result in aiding the killers.

This should be obvious.

 

[possenti]

the general public will swallow this garbage hook, line and sinker and gladly accept more gun control.

I think in a situation like this, the "blood running in the streets" media paranoia would fall on deaf ears, just as the CCW laws keep passing in more and more states. CCW is one area that we are winning the RKBA.

I know what you're saying about the general public being a bunch of sheep, but a crisis such as this would cause many to finally see the light and realize that disarmament is not the answer.

...Wow! I guess I do have a little faith left in my fellow citizens after all. It's just a shame that it takes a tragedy to wake them up.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The DC-area snipers may have been Islamic sympathizers, but they didn't exactly qualify as foreign terrorists.

Wrong. Half of them were illegal aliens.

 

[ny32182]

I've got to say that I too have wondered why there haven't been foreign terrorists with 30.06's shooting at civilians here.

But, I'm gonna have to disagree and say that this would certainly lead to much more support for all kinds of gun control. This has been the case with every other highly publicized gun crime in recent memory, and I see no reason why that trend would change.

The thought of an armed population wouldn't even register in the terrorists' minds, nor would they care if it did. The people recruited to carry out such attacks would be of the same mentality as the 9/11 hijackers: fully prepared, and in fact WANTING to die for their cause. Why would these people care in the least about an armed population? They wouldn't.

Lastly, running around with a rifle hunting snipers in an area where sniper attacks are going on sounds like a great way to get shot by someone, and also exponentially multiplies the number of leads that the police are going to have to check out. Privately owned firearms have a number of legitimate purposes, but vigilante tactics isn't one of them. Hunting criminals is the job of law enforcement.

 

[buy guns]

1.) More people shooting at a moving vehicle equals misses, which means stray fire, which means collateral damage, which means gun control.

but you dont know if a moving vehicle would be used again.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

possenti:

1.) More people shooting at a moving vehicle equals misses, which means stray fire, which means collateral damage, which means gun control.

You are making an assumption here very similar to that made by the committed gun-grabbers, i.e., that the average citizen cannot be trusted to employ firearms safely or responsibly. Where do you find a factual basis for your assertion that there would be crowds of people firing at a moving vehicle?

Most of the people I spoke to planned to use their cell phone first and their rifle only if they had a clear shot. Most had vast experience in hunting, the military, or law enforcement and would not violate the dictum that one must know their target and target background completely before shooting. Those and the other basic rules of gun safety as well.

2.) Nobody should take the law into their own hands....I know it is tempting, and at times it is life or death in which you have no choice and self defense is FULLY justified OR it is on YOUR property, but an armed crowd of villagers with torches will only ignite about a thousand "false positives" and when law enforcement now has to split their efforts sorting between looking for the sniper and maintaining civil control.

Again, you are trying to use the most negative imagery you can think of in order to bolster your negative stereotype of gun owners. I recall something in the Law about the use of force in the defense of another and/or to effect a stop for the police as being "privileged."

Law enforcement would have had no more of a need to "enforce civil control" amongst those I saw out looking for Malvo and Muhammad then they would for any other neighborhood watch. Which is essentially what were were doing, on an extended basis.

Do you also favor NJ Senator Lautenberg's proposal to allow the government to restrict gun sales during national emergencies, after all, we wouldn't want crowds of armed, hysterical villigers running around now would we.

3.) Innocent "vigilantes" (by innocent I mean not the sought after sniper) will be arrested and possibly mistaken for the sniper...thus the sniper goes free. I.E. false positive

My right to bear arms is not contingent on the convenience of the police. And if they are doing their jobs responsibly there will be no arrests of law-abiding citizens who are formed into roving armed watch groups.

4.) Slowing down police will result in aiding the killers.

Chief Moose's incompetence slowed the capture of Malvo and Muhammad, not the citizens who were out looking for them.

This should be obvious.

Only if one buys into your negative stereotypes of gun owners.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

ttbadboy:

Lastly, running around with a rifle hunting snipers in an area where sniper attacks are going on sounds like a great way to get shot by someone, and also exponentially multiplies the number of leads that the police are going to have to check out. Privately owned firearms have a number of legitimate purposes, but vigilante tactics isn't one of them. Hunting criminals is the job of law enforcement.

So by your logic a woman is much better off not arming herself, she might force her attacker to be more violent. Much better for her to just dial 911 and wait for the police.

BTW, I wasn't riding out on a seat welded to the fender of my Jeep with my rifle shouldered like John Wayne in the African adventure movie "Hatari." My rifle was hidden down behind the seat and I was planning on using the cell phone first and the rifle only as a last resort.

There was no danger that I was going to be shot or arrested. The police managed to slow themselves down nicely without my help.

 

[ny32182]

There is a difference between self defence/ccw, and actively hunting bad guys in the DC area.

One is taking precautions to ensure your own safety should trouble come looking for you. The other is going out and looking for trouble. Personal safety is an individual responsibility. Looking for trouble is an LEO responsibility.

The two are not comparable.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

There is a difference between self defence/ccw, and actively hunting bad guys in the DC area.

One is taking precautions to ensure your own safety should trouble come looking for you. The other is going out and looking for trouble. Personal safety is an individual responsibility. Looking for trouble is an LEO responsibility.

The two are not comparable

There is absolutely no difference between my actions during the Malvo and Muhammed murder spree and those of any neighborhood watch group. Your reasoning could be applied equally as well to them.

Community safety is everyones responsibility. If thousands of my fellow Washingtonians had been organized into roving armed watch groups co-operating with law enforcement, as they should have been, I am convinced that Malvo and Muhammed would have been caught much sooner.

Organized police forces are a very recent phenomena in human history. There is nothing magic about them, they only duplicate today what private citizens used to undertake themselves in ages past, i.e, the type of personal action I undertook during the killing spree.

BTW- I want to add that I was not "hunting" Malvo and Muhammed, I was "looking" for the killers with the primary idea of notifying the police if I saw them. My rifle was carried legally as per Virginia law and was there as a backup to my cell phone.

 

[MPFreeman]

Oh please. It's gonna start soon. This Terrorist sniper scenerio IS going to happen.

Just imagine the year 2020. That is the predicted year as of now (with current immagration) as to when the Six largest US cities will be majority muslim. Yippy! How easy would it be for a terrorist ,with a large sympathetic community that feels outside the mainstream and utterly unassemilated, for this terrorist to roam a city and pick off "Infidels"? Nobody would dare turn him in. Just getting kicked out of the only community you have is scary enough. What are the good people to do? The kind Muslim? He isn't accepted in American Culture and he dare not get thrown out of his own.

Imagine "Unintended Consequences" played out on the Infidel, and not the JBT's.

Why hasn't it happened yet? I don't know. But I think the likelyhood of your bad situation occurring is rather high.

 

[WonderNine]

I think that people forget that handguns also have quite an effective range as well. As I recall most if not all of the DC sniper shootings took place at a range of less than 100 yards, easily within the effective range of a 9mm and especially something like a 7.62X25, .357 (or 357 SIG), 10mm, .41 mag, ect. I certainly wouldn't want to stand down at the 100 yard line and catch a 9mm NATO round or a 7.62X25mm and they would both probably still go right through you.

Snipers also aren't going to hang around when every other house in a neighborhood probably has a scoped .243,.270 or .30-06 in it and the LEO's are right around the corner.

 

[Travis McGee]

Forget about "counter sniper" in a M&M DC sniper tactical scenario. They did shoot and scoot from a car trunk. By the time you would unlimber your rifle, they're in the next county.

And for a barricaded sniper (a rare case, but it happens) be VERY careful, because when the SWAT team rolls onto the scene of "sniper firing" and they see you with your rifle......

When our rifles will come in handy is during CW2, when it's time to take out the trash in this country once and for all.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I wondered WHY this isn't happening. My theory is that terrorists fear more Americans would eventually arm themselves against such a threat, and it wouldn't be successful - just as the alleged Japanese General said there was "an armed American behind every blade of grass" when they considered a mainland invasion during WWII. If such a scenario were to happen, I predict that more gun control wouldn't even be considered an option by the general populace, although Feinswine and Co. would still propose it. But would big-city urbanites vigilantly take up arms against such a terrorist threat?
--------------------

Sniping is a small beans terroristic tactic, if used for terrorism. Why shoot a few when you can wear a bomb into a busy terminal and blow up 200 people?

 

[Hawkeye]

What we need in this country is more sheepdogs, and less sheep.

 

[Henry Bowman]

If M&M DC badguys had moved their operation to a new city after the first 10 or so, if they had used multiple rifles/calibers, if they had not begged to be caught (like calling the hotline and leaving tarot cards with notes), if they had consistently waited until there was a white van in the area (very common in an urban setting) before taking a shot, Chief moose would still be looking for them (and so would we).

If a well disciplined group (say 6 pairs) would work together in different cities, swapping their rifles randomly and moving on after a few kills, we would be searching for months or years. All the while the sheep would be wetting themselves, the grabbers would be grabbling, the pols would be scrapping for power, and CWII would be discussed.

If the above plan was carried out on election day in key states/districts, targeting voters and a few schools in 2 or 3 big coastal cities plus 2 or 3 "heartland" cities, mass panic would result and an election could be thrown. Folks would avoid the polls en mass and would run to rescue their kids. LE would be overwelmed. Right here. In the USA.

If they were disciplined (know when to pause and keep mouth shut) and not nuts (like M&M or the Columbus guy), they could keep moving and NEVER be caught.

This would be so easy, it's scary. And the impact on our way of life would be deeper and longer lasting than 9-11.

 

[ny32182]

I second Henry's comments as well. For a group of smart, sane people carrying out such attacks, "not getting caught" would be painfully easy.

 

[Hawkeye]

Originally posted by Henry Bowman:
If M&M DC badguys had moved their operation to a new city after the first 10 or so, if they had used multiple rifles/calibers, if they had not begged to be caught (like calling the hotline and leaving tarot cards with notes), if they had consistently waited until there was a white van in the area (very common in an urban setting) before taking a shot, Chief moose would still be looking for them (and so would we).

If a well disciplined group (say 6 pairs) would work together in different cities, swapping their rifles randomly and moving on after a few kills, we would be searching for months or years. All the while the sheep would be wetting themselves, the grabbers would be grabbling, the pols would be scrapping for power, and CWII would be discussed.

If the above plan was carried out on election day in key states/districts, targeting voters and a few schools in 2 or 3 big coastal cities plus 2 or 3 "heartland" cities, mass panic would result and an election could be thrown. Folks would avoid the polls en mass and would run to rescue their kids. LE would be overwelmed. Right here. In the USA.

If they were disciplined (know when to pause and keep mouth shut) and not nuts (like M&M or the Columbus guy), they could keep moving and NEVER be caught.

This would be so easy, it's scary. And the impact on our way of life would be deeper and longer lasting than 9-11.

Exactly. For the right person/people, it would be fairly easy to do. Dont forget folks, a terrorist main objective, is not neccesarily body count. Its fear. Think about what the sheeple would do, with just 3-4 people doing this around the country, randomly. People would start to become too scared to go anywhere/do anything. Depending on the severity of reaction and time of year, it could have a significant economical impact in some areas. The psychological impact "could", be pretty severe.

 

[Werewolf]

Henry's scenario is indeed scary and ultimately implementable. However, I don't believe it will come to pass for a number of reasons:

1) It's a onesee twosee type of terrorism. So far the terrorists seem to prefer the killing of many over the killing of just one.

2) A bomber entering a terminal and blowing himself up does not have to deal with the emotional baggage that goes along with the extremely personal nature of sniping. Blowing yourself, women and kids up is one thing. Shooting a woman or a child and watching them die is another. Remember these guys are religious fanatics. They think they're going to heaven. Killing themselves along with their enemies may in their minds alleviate some of the guilt of killing innocents. That guilt would not be alleviated at all if the killing was done by sniping.

3) The sheeple have short memories and the islamists know this. Terrorists want to hurt us and then let the wounds heal. A sniping campaign is long term and would stay in the minds of the US population. Terrorists don't want that. A successfull sniping campaign that continued for months without US LE making an arrest would lead to a great deal of anger and fear in the US population. That anger would be directed IMO in two directions a) at US Muslims and b) at the populations of Islamic countries. US Muslims would be better off in in internment camps like the Japanese of WWII for their own safety if the proposed scenario ever came to pass because even a cornered sheep will fight. As for muslims in middle eastern countries the anger of the US population would be such that I don't believe any politician - even Kerry - could ignore it. Carpet bombing population centers might just become a resurrected tactic.

Terrorists may be evil but they are certainly not stupid.

 

[TooTaxed]

I share Possenti's concerns. Just a few scattered incidents would result in an uproar and suspicion of ANYONE with a scoped rifle...people uneducated on guns lump them all together. I fear eventual restrictions on scoped rifles...

Those actively willing to join the anti-terrorist fray should be very careful...if the police see ANYONE in the general incident area with a gun he will immediately be a target...even if it turns out later that he just wanted to help. Not much consolation to your widow... Suggest you first of all get to know some of your policemen, contact them first, unarmed, and coordinate your activities with them...or, join the Police Auxiliary...

 

[TBeck]

Why haven't there been any successful terrorist attacks since 9/11? We know that America is a high value target for the terrorists. The logic that there are easier American targets in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't really wash. These people understand the difference between killing soldiers and civilians.

The reasonable conclusion is that we have them on the run. The response by President Bush has disrupted their overseas command and control. Concentrated efforts by FBI and CIA, combined with the new powers and efficiencies enabled by the Patriot Act, have put them on the run and kept them running.

 

[Henry Bowman]

1) So far, yes. But terrorists have lots of time on their hands to sit an think up creative evil. 9-11 is a good example. If they think through the likely effects, they may vary their traditional techniques. The mass bombings work better in in the mid-east, but their have been exceptions.

2) Our military snipers are trained to deal with the emotional baggage of their important work. I think that a religious extremist with jihad on the mind couls "get over it" with a little practice. After all, "after the first one, the rest are free."

3) This presumes that some group takes credit or is assigned blame fairly early in the process. For a while, home grown militia extremist or "loner "off his meds" would be considered as equal possibilities. Apart from a syncronized election day strike, it would take a while to connect the perps but would invoke general fear and panic. As for military response, there would be no clear hard target and it would not necessarily have any effect on the continuance of the US based snipers. It would, however, motivate the Islamists to more jihad (however all that works). Back home, we would lose civil rights rapidly, pitting political and non-political groups against each other. With some planning, modified as the events unfold, the economic effect could be huge.

I see no legal or practical way to prevent this from happening. I see no sure way to stop it from continuing if it did start. A small disciplined group could then disban far a while and either disappear or reappear at will. eventually, some would get caught. Others would be identified. But . . .

Let's just pray that this kind of behavior remains limited to nuts who are rare and whose mental state makes them get caught in fairly short order. TBeck, I hope you're right!