[David Armstrong]

Alright, I said the attack has stopped, not was stopped. If you lose control of your vehicle, hit two cars, then come to a stop, the accident has stopped, but it was not stopped.

So we still have an attack, and we still have an accident. Hard to say that they were stopped. I like raimus' phrasing: "In responding to an attack in progress, the best you can do is mitigate the damage."

Current carrying in America WAS mentioned, and the primary method of carry in America is CCW.

And carrying in India was mentioned, and carry in general, and lots of other things. CCW was NOT mentioned.

I agree, but that does not mean that we should say, "Aw, hell, the attack wasn't stopped, so we might as well let it run its course." In fear of them adjusting to victims who are carrying, which it seems is implied here:

I agree we should not say that, and I have never said that. The implication is of your own making and is not reflective of my position. In fact I believe I explicitly rejected that concept back in post #28.

I believe that you agree with me in that they should be stopped, but are just saying that if/when they are stopped, other means will be employed, so therefore terrorist attacks will continue to happen. Therefore, arming the citizenry will not stop terrorism. I get that. I have gotten that for a while.

Then why do you continue to argue about it unless, as hondo put it, you are just "sharpshooting"?

He's saying that there's no way that attack could have happened if the populous was armed. You say that it would have happened, but possibly not via guns and grenades.

I do not say that. I say the attack could have happened just as it did even with an armed populous.