The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 31, 2008, 08:37 PM   #1
CDRogers
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 27, 2007
Posts: 11
Terrorist Scenarios

This has probably been talked about before; if so, forgive me....

But how many of you go through terrorist scenarios in your mind?

I do---a lot, especially during the holiday season; and tonight, New Year's Eve.

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 is the beauty of our Constitution, and the strength of America: the fact that there are so many law abiding citizens who carry a handgun--and who can come to the aid of others in the event of a "shooter" strolling through a mall, killing indescriminately.

When I saw the security camera images of one of the mass murderers in Mumbai, walking UNOPPOSED through a shopping mall, carrying his AK 47 and wearing a backpack filled with ammo, I wanted to yell out, "The only reason he's so calm and arrogant is because everyone around him is unarmed!"

That could not have happened in a shopping mall in Arizona or Vermont, or in another dozen states where the average man doesn't necessarily have to run for cover and plead for mercy to sadistic killers. In those shopping malls, an unassuming guy might pull out his revolver or pistol and FIGHT BACK---and suddenly the arrogance of the killers vanishes, and they are impeded in their death march.

Instead of making foreign policy statements in response to the mass killings in Mumbai, the Indian Government should simply announce that all Indian men will henceforth be required to train with and to carry a firearm. I think the terrorists would think twice if they knew they were about to enter an armed society.

Happy New Year to the men and women of this forum who would not cower helplessly before an armed terrorist.

Dan
CDRogers is offline  
Old December 31, 2008, 08:52 PM   #2
Erik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
"That could not have happened..."

Maybe, maybe not. We tell ourselves that, but that does not necessarily make it so.

Don't get me wrong, I like the direction that you are going, but I'm just not so sure about the absolution of "it could not have happened."
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective

Last edited by Erik; December 31, 2008 at 08:58 PM.
Erik is offline  
Old December 31, 2008, 09:33 PM   #3
Slopemeno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2007
Posts: 2,344
Then that backpack would have had Sarin, or C-4, etc, etc. The tool doesn't matter.
Slopemeno is offline  
Old December 31, 2008, 10:56 PM   #4
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,425
Quote:
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.
Mass murders still happen in places where there is concealed carry and so it most definitely could have happened in Mumbai.

Quote:
Then that backpack would have had Sarin, or C-4, etc, etc. The tool doesn't matter.
Right, had the average citizen of Mumbai been armed, the terrorists would have used other means. Determined terrorists will attack.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old December 31, 2008, 10:59 PM   #5
troy_mclure
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Location: gulf of mexico
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Then that backpack would have had Sarin, or C-4, etc, etc. The tool doesn't matter.
+1
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
troy_mclure is offline  
Old January 1, 2009, 11:20 AM   #6
CDRogers
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 27, 2007
Posts: 11
I should have been clearer. When I say "that could not have happened" in Mumbai with an armed citizenry, I mean that it could not have happened to that extent. And I firmly believe that. The terrorists could not stroll through the public areas shooting at will if they had been engaged in a firefight with just one person. Rember: the terrorists had split up; each one was "working" his own area. Just one armed person would have slowed the advance of a terrorist, perhaps long enough for help to arrive.

Yes, the attack, per se, certainly would have happened, but not to that extent.
CDRogers is offline  
Old January 1, 2009, 01:47 PM   #7
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
1. All 'men' should be trained - rather retro in outlook.
2. We get rampages in CCW states, here. Tacoma mall - for instance.
3. Easy to pick soft targets where CCW is banned.
4. Only 1 to 5 ish % of a shall issue states population have permits. Many don't carry but keep the gun in the 'car' or the 'truck'.

If there were really 6000 Al-Qaeda operatives in the USA - as I once heard at a seminar and they doing recon on malls and they wanted to just use 50 of them in 25 two man teams - one to shoot and one to look for Mister Fanny Pack or Mr. Tac Vest - they could do terrible damage in a mall.

So if one really understands the meaning of 'average' - the average man will have to run for his life. The average man is unarmed. And guess, what - the average CCW type is untrained for such. The average guy in Vermont is not packing for a rampage gun fight.

Again, rethink - 'man' - in Israel - where they face intensive terrorist threats and many, many more carry - a woman took down a bomb guy. Who would have thought that.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 2, 2009, 05:16 PM   #8
Rifleman 173
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 588
Come to Illinois. Basically the entire state is one gun free zone except for cops who can carry concealed. This anti-gun stupidity in Illinois is the result of corrupt Chicago Democrats forcing anti-gun laws into play across the WHOLE state. They've already had one spree killer do his thing about 35 miles west of Chicago at NIU. I'm flatly amazed that it hasn't happened more often in Illinois. Illinois is pretty much a human hunting preserve for any anti-gun spree killing criminal who wants to make his point known.

As for terrorists, when researching the 9-11 assassins, I came across information that said that they had originally wanted to learn to fly crop dusting planes. It is conjecture that the 9-11 terrorists were going to use the crop dusting airplanes to deliver anthrax or some other biological or chemical factor against a larger number of Americans in key spots in New York City. Imagine 4 airplanes spraying anthrax in a box around Wall Street making it so nobody inside the box can get out UNLESS they walk through a contaminated area. Estimates on the number of people killed or made sick from such an attack were a lot more devastating than what happened on 9-11.

Last edited by Rifleman 173; January 2, 2009 at 05:23 PM.
Rifleman 173 is offline  
Old January 4, 2009, 07:10 PM   #9
A/C Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2007
Location: Apache Junction, Az
Posts: 309
blackflags, he was correct. He said corrupt Chicago Democrats. There are no Republicans, not one, in office in Illinois. A fact recently discussed on the Sunday political-discussion tv shows, as they were discussing the recent scandal with their democrat governor.
A/C Guy is offline  
Old January 4, 2009, 07:38 PM   #10
CARGUY2244
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2008
Posts: 119
acts of criminal violence are almost impossible to prevent.
there's an inverted correlation between armed response to such violence mitigating loss of innocent life vs. the committment and detail of said criminals.
had hotel staff and guests been armed, perhaps mumbai killers would've been stifled - or maybe not
los angeles police were armed, and outnumbered bogies during hollywood shootout, but conflict was not stopped instantly.
the ability to prevent or terminate violence is based on awareness, immediate response previous to the criminal violence unfolding, AND said response being both swift and severely more violent than the criminal act itself.
rkba and ccw, these make us free men - but not likely to impede terrorist acts.
CARGUY2244 is offline  
Old January 5, 2009, 11:44 AM   #11
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
You don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack because generally he is well into it by the time the act is recognized and halted. Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time. You stop terrorist attacks through good intelligence and analysis and by controlling access, and even then it is not so much a stopping as often just a relocating, such as human bombs going off at the checkpoint instead of at the marketplace.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 08:05 PM   #12
Mannlicher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 8, 2001
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 2,971
It seems to be virtually impossible to stop a determined, trained, and dedicated terrorist from doing his thing. The best anyone can do with that situation, is to react, but there is really nothing a Citizen can do to prevent it.
Thats what we pay the goobermint to do, frankly. Better results in the long run, when you go over THERE, and kill the terrorists in their back yard.
__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.".........Ronald Reagan
Mannlicher is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 08:29 PM   #13
onthejon55
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2008
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 411
Quote:
You don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack because generally he is well into it by the time the act is recognized and halted. Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time. You stop terrorist attacks through good intelligence and analysis and by controlling access, and even then it is not so much a stopping as often just a relocating, such as human bombs going off at the checkpoint instead of at the marketplace.
your right a 9mm to the jugular is pretty much useless
onthejon55 is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 08:36 PM   #14
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
You don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack because generally he is well into it by the time the act is recognized and halted. Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time. You stop terrorist attacks through good intelligence and analysis and by controlling access, and even then it is not so much a stopping as often just a relocating, such as human bombs going off at the checkpoint instead of at the marketplace.
I agree with David, here. Don't try to stop the terrorist, just let him finish. That way, after he is done, he won't be able make his attack better next time .
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!
BuckHammer is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 09:31 PM   #15
Slopemeno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2007
Posts: 2,344
Yet terrorists attack our troops nearly every day.

You can't underestimate these clowns. They arent going to break into Thunder Ranch range to engage in a gunfight- they're going to do things that are going to enrage us and make US make the mistake.

Last edited by Slopemeno; January 8, 2009 at 10:07 PM. Reason: cant spell
Slopemeno is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 09:59 PM   #16
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,320
Many terrorists are well-educated, highly committed, and good at planning (at least the leaders, anyway). Our side has to win 100% of the time to prevent attacks, while terrorist organizations only need enough left to try again. Don't underestimate them, but don't think they can't be defeated either.

In responding to an attack in progress, the best you can do is mitigate the damage. Sometimes that will be a tremendous change, sometimes not. Prevention is best, mitigation is decent, and failure is just that.
raimius is offline  
Old January 8, 2009, 10:13 PM   #17
Slopemeno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2007
Posts: 2,344
Well put Ramius. I think that in a weird way, you have to think of terrorists as doing a sort of Judo- they are going to use our weight and speed against us.
Slopemeno is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 01:03 AM   #18
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
I agree with David, here. Don't try to stop the terrorist, just let him finish. That way, after he is done, he won't be able make his attack better next time
Strange that you would say that to agree with David, since David did not say that.

Quote:
your right a 9mm to the jugular is pretty much useless
Nor did David say that. Very strange how people want to try to put words into others mouths.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 01:38 AM   #19
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Strange that you would say that to agree with David, since David did not say that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer, not David Armstrong
Don't try to stop the terrorist, just let him finish. That way, after he is done, he won't be able make his attack better next time .
Strange that you would say that I said you said that, because I didn't. I said I agreed, then ended that sentence with a period. I began the next sentence with my own words. You did indeed post the passage that I quoted. I was making a witty, sarcastic reference to it. The OP was about CCW, not CIA analysts. If anyone is witnessing what is clearly a violent terrorist act in progress, the way terrorism is effectively prevented is pretty well irrelevant at that point. The threat should be stopped immediately, by civilians if necessary. If a violent terrorist attack is already in progress, then the threat should absolutely be stopped by attacking the terrorist during the attack. This is in contrary to your statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
You don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack because generally he is well into it by the time the act is recognized and halted. Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time.
You seem to be advocating that all involved should sit on their hands. If this is not what you are implying, then please elaborate, because if so, your post merits much confusion.
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!

Last edited by BuckHammer; January 9, 2009 at 01:40 AM. Reason: fixed grammatical error
BuckHammer is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 06:28 AM   #20
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,425
Quote:
You don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack because generally he is well into it by the time the act is recognized and halted. Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time.
If you don't stop the attacks after they start, just how are these attacks being halted? Either you are contradicting yourself or your are indeed advocating letting the terror attacks just run their course whilst everyone sits on their hands.

You gotta admit, you don't want to try to stop any sort of crime or attack because that will just give the bad guys better information for next time.

Aren't you a policeman? That is a strange attitude for a policeman.

Quote:
You stop terrorist attacks through good intelligence and analysis and by controlling access, and even then it is not so much a stopping as often just a relocating, such as human bombs going off at the checkpoint instead of at the marketplace.
How do you stop access to the world?

Good intel? Given all the intel being produced, the problem is that there is plenty of good intel out there, but that it is buried in all the other less important or erroneous intel that the "good" intel isn't always recognizable in a timely manner.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 12:58 PM   #21
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
Strange that you would say that I said you said that, because I didn't. I said I agreed, then ended that sentence with a period. I began the next sentence with my own words. You did indeed post the passage that I quoted. I was making a witty, sarcastic reference to it.
And the reference, as I pointed out, has nothing to do with what I said. Thus to attempt to suggest that it is in agreement with what I have said is dishonest.
Quote:
The OP was about CCW, not CIA analysts.
I see nothing in the OP about CCW. I do see that eric, slopemeno, troy mclure, carguy2244, mannlicher, ramius, and most commenting on the thread agree that the way to stop terrorist attacks is not by an armed civilian jumping into the situation, it is to prevent it through other factors.
Quote:
You seem to be advocating that all involved should sit on their hands. If this is not what you are implying, then please elaborate, because if so, your post merits much confusion.
Doesn't seem confusing to most, and if you are confused maybe you should try to clarify before making a "witty, sarcastic reference to it."

Last edited by David Armstrong; January 9, 2009 at 01:17 PM.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 01:16 PM   #22
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
If you don't stop the attacks after they start, just how are these attacks being halted?
If the terrorist kills everybody, then shoots himself in the head, would you say the attack was stopped? I doubt it. Was the school attack at Beslan stopped when the Russians shot the terrorists? No, the terrorist attack had already occurred. You stop an attack by preventing it from occuring, not letting it begin and then interrupting it. The attack has already occurred, all you are doing is reducing the final impact.
Quote:
You gotta admit, you don't want to try to stop any sort of crime or attack because that will just give the bad guys better information for next time.
No, I don't have to admit that. If you want to make that claim, fine, but don't try to attach it to me. And we are talking terrorists here, members of an organized effort, not individual criminals. In fact, let me quote from an ealier post by somebody else: "Right, had the average citizen of Mumbai been armed, the terrorists would have used other means. Determined terrorists will attack." When terrorists get information about what does not work they tend to change tactics.
Quote:
How do you stop access to the world?
Don't think you can, but also not sure what that has to do with anything that has been said.
Quote:
Good intel? Given all the intel being produced, the problem is that there is plenty of good intel out there, but that it is buried in all the other less important or erroneous intel that the "good" intel isn't always recognizable in a timely manner.
Which is why I included "and analysis" in my post.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 01:38 PM   #23
onthejon55
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2008
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 411
Quote:
You don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack because generally he is well into it by the time the act is recognized and halted
so you're saying that attacking a terrorist is useless correct?

thus i posted:
Quote:
your right a 9mm to the jugular is pretty much useless
to point out your flaw in logic.

The OP was about terrorist attacks taking place and what to do in that situation. Im pretty sure no one on this forum has the resources to stop a terrorist attack through 'good intelligence and analysis and by controlling access'. so why bring that up? of course the best way to deal with an issue is to prevent it before it happens but you nor i can do that so the best way for the average citizen, like most of the people on this forum, to end an attack is to fight back.

Last edited by onthejon55; January 9, 2009 at 01:38 PM. Reason: grammar
onthejon55 is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 01:43 PM   #24
M1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 2000
Posts: 4,055
Quote:
"That could not have happened..."
Sure it could, and it has. Westroads Mall in Omaha. Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City. Tacoma Mall Shooting in Tacoma.
M1911 is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 01:49 PM   #25
Hondo11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
I didn't see anything in the original post about preventing a terrorist attack. I thought he was talking about stopping an attack that's happening or at least mentally going over scenarios.

There's a huge difference between prevention (keeping it from happening in the first place) and stopping one that's currently happening.


I would consider any of the mall-shootings, school shootings, etc, a "terrorist act"...maybe not in regard to motivation, etc, but with respect to the way they're carried out (multiple victims, public setting, etc). So yeah, they can happen here in the US. They already have.
Hondo11 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14724 seconds with 9 queries