I think it may be open to interpretation, but for me the main statment or thought is "There's no way the mass murder that took place in Mumbai a few weeks ago could have happened if the average Indian citizen carried a weapon." This leads to concepts like "Then that backpack would have had Sarin, or C-4, etc, etc. The tool doesn't matter" or "Right, had the average citizen of Mumbai been armed, the terrorists would have used other means. Determined terrorists will attack.", etc. that show there is a way.
I think there may be a disconnect between "stopping a terrorist" and "stopping terrorist scenarios." Shooting a terrorist because he is doing something, almost by definition, means that he has already started his terrorist scenario. IMO, hard to say a terrorist scenario was stopped if there are a dozen people already dead/injured from the attack.
Last edited by David Armstrong; January 9, 2009 at 02:36 PM.