Vid: India gun control enabled Mumbai slaughter

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You may recall two: Tyler and the Tacoma mall - where these probably brave gentlemen came to a bad end.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

[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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
 
...would anyone want to live in a city like Bombay,
with everyone carrying?

There´d 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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
would anyone want to live in a city like Bombay,
with everyone carrying?

There´d 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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
concealed carry make it safer or no?

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
Nra Impotence:structured Incompetence And Gun Control
Replies
8
Views
630
FPrice
F
W
  • Locked
Drawing a gun= criminal lag time
Replies
15
Views
450
Webbj0219
W
A
  • Locked
OT but pertinent to tomorrow's world...read and heed...
Replies
7
Views
460
Don Gwinn
D
2
  • Locked
The Real Terror Masters
Replies
0
Views
451
2dogs
2
M
  • Locked
This story's all bad for us...
Replies
7
Views
545
2TransAms
2
Back
Top