December 31, 2008, 08:37 PM | #1 |
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 |
December 31, 2008, 08:52 PM | #2 |
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. |
December 31, 2008, 09:33 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 19, 2007
Posts: 2,663
|
Then that backpack would have had Sarin, or C-4, etc, etc. The tool doesn't matter.
|
December 31, 2008, 10:56 PM | #4 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,712
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"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 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
December 31, 2008, 10:59 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Location: gulf of mexico
Posts: 2,716
|
Quote:
__________________
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." |
|
January 1, 2009, 11:20 AM | #6 |
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. |
January 1, 2009, 01:47 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 2, 2009, 05:16 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 589
|
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. |
January 4, 2009, 07:10 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2007
Location: Apache Junction, Az
Posts: 308
|
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.
|
January 4, 2009, 07:38 PM | #10 |
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. |
January 5, 2009, 11:44 AM | #11 |
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.
|
January 8, 2009, 08:05 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 8, 2001
Location: North Central Florida & Miami
Posts: 3,207
|
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 |
January 8, 2009, 08:29 PM | #13 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 23, 2008
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 411
|
Quote:
|
|
January 8, 2009, 08:36 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
|
Quote:
__________________
Luck runs out. Boiler Up! |
|
January 8, 2009, 09:31 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 19, 2007
Posts: 2,663
|
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 |
January 8, 2009, 09:59 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
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. |
January 8, 2009, 10:13 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 19, 2007
Posts: 2,663
|
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.
|
January 9, 2009, 01:03 AM | #18 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
January 9, 2009, 01:38 AM | #19 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Luck runs out. Boiler Up! Last edited by BuckHammer; January 9, 2009 at 01:40 AM. Reason: fixed grammatical error |
|||
January 9, 2009, 06:28 AM | #20 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,712
|
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. Aren't you a policeman? That is a strange attitude for a policeman. 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.
__________________
"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 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
January 9, 2009, 12:58 PM | #21 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by David Armstrong; January 9, 2009 at 01:17 PM. |
|||
January 9, 2009, 01:16 PM | #22 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
January 9, 2009, 01:38 PM | #23 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: October 23, 2008
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 411
|
Quote:
thus i posted: Quote:
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 |
||
January 9, 2009, 01:43 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 28, 2000
Posts: 4,055
|
Quote:
|
|
January 9, 2009, 01:49 PM | #25 |
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|