The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 9, 2009, 02:23 PM   #26
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
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.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 02:33 PM   #27
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
so you're saying that attacking a terrorist is useless correct?
No, it is not useless and I did not say anything close to that.
Quote:
to point out your flaw in logic.
There is no flaw in my logic. My statement was that you don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack. If that was true there would be no more terrorist attacks because we have hundreds, likely thousands, of instances of terrorists being attacked during their attack. Yet terrorist attacks still continue. The attacks have not been stopped. Ask the folks in Israel if the terrorist attacks on them have stopped because they have killed lots of terrorists.
Quote:
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?
Because if you are concerned with stopping terrorist attacks that is what you need, and that should be pointed out. Imagining that terrorist attacks would be stopped if we just had more folks shooting at terrorists is not realistic, as others have already pointed out.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 02:37 PM   #28
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,387
Quote:
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).
Actually, it is motivation that is the distinguishing difference between a terrorist attack and mass murder or serial killing. Unless the attack is carried out against civilian targets for the purpose of bringing about social, political, or religious change, they are not terrorist attacks.

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism.[24] In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

Quote:
…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"
UN Security Council Resolution 1566, March 17, 2005 -a UN panel described terrorism as
Quote:
any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.
So Columbine wasn't an act of terrorism. The DC Snipers were not terrorists. Many if not most church shootings are not terrorist-based, nor are mall shootings (at least not to date).
__________________
"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, 02:41 PM   #29
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,387
Quote:
There is no flaw in my logic. My statement was that you don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack. If that was true there would be no more terrorist attacks because we have hundreds, likely thousands, of instances of terrorists being attacked during their attack. Yet terrorist attacks still continue.
You misspoke. You used the phrase "terrorist attacks" to mean "terrorism." Individual terrorist attacks are stopped by violence. Terrorism isn't.
__________________
"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, 04:53 PM   #30
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
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.
If that is true, could you please explain what you are trying to say here:
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.
Please, just please try to explain what you are trying to say.

Also,
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
I see nothing in the OP about CCW.
***?
From OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDRogers
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...

...I wanted to yell out, "The only reason he's so calm and arrogant is because everyone around him is unarmed!"...

...In those shopping malls, an unassuming guy might pull out his revolver or pistol and FIGHT BACK...

...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...
What's your interpretation on that? The OP is littered with CCW references. It is not, however, littered with references to intelligence and analysis in prevention. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here. So please, devote some thought to this thread, maybe take a break, then come back and ELABORATE. I really want to know what you are trying to say, but you have not made it clear to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDRogers
But how many of you go through terrorist scenarios in your mind?
He is talking about running through a scenario where he is confronted by a terrorist attack. I mean, intelligence and analysis when it comes to prevention is not really the topic. Sounds like an average guy asking if we run through terrorism scenarios and what we plan to do in potential attacks to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstong
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."
No, maybe you need to clarify. Based on others' posts, I am not the only one that is confused. I only asked that you elaborate, and you did not. Please do so. Believe it or not, I am not some kind of idiot. Just saying, it happens to everybody, you post something and it makes since to you, but not to anybody else. It's no big deal, just a little more elaboration is necessary, you know, explain what you mean. That's what this is supposed to be, a discussion, and I (and others) are having difficulty interpreting your seemingly conflicting posts. All I'm asking for is explanation.
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!

Last edited by BuckHammer; January 9, 2009 at 05:10 PM. Reason: added that last part
BuckHammer is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 05:35 PM   #31
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
You misspoke. You used the phrase "terrorist attacks" to mean "terrorism."
Nno I didn't, I spoke exactly as I wanted to and it is an accurate phraseology. Killing terrorists does not stop terrorist attacks, it only stops that terrorist. Israelis and others have been killing terrorists for years, yet terrorist attacks continue.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 05:45 PM   #32
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,918
David ~

If you're not trying to stir the pot, you need to go back and read more carefully, please.

If you are trying to stir the pot, knock it off.

The subject is provocative enough without deliberate equivocation to muddy the waters.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 05:48 PM   #33
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
If that is true, could you please explain what you are trying to say here:
Seems pretty straightforward. If you kill the terrorist after he has shot 20 people, was the terrorist attack stopped? No. The killing stopped, but the attack has already occurred. You may have kept it from being worse, but the attack was not stopped.
Quote:
What's your interpretation on that? The OP is littered with CCW references.
No it is not. There is not a single reference to CCW in the thread. There is reference to people being armed, but that is not contingent on CCW.
Quote:
He is talking about running through a scenario where he is confronted by a terrorist attack.
Fine. My point is that if your goal is to stop terrorist attacks, shooting a terrorist is not a very good way to do that.
Quote:
No, maybe you need to clarify. Based on others' posts, I am not the only one that is confused.
Sure seems like it, and only reinforces my point. If you don't understand what is being discussed, you should avoid making "witty, sarcastic reference to it."
Quote:
I (and others) are having difficulty interpreting your seemingly conflicting posts. All I'm asking for is explanation.
AFAIK, most "others" don't seem to have any trouble, and I don't know how to make it any clearer. Killing terrorists does not stop terrorist attacks. If it did there would not be as many terrorist attacks as we see going on around the world. Arresting rapists does not stop sexual assaults. Shooting murderers does not stop murderous attacks. Killing pirates did not stop pirate attacks.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 05:54 PM   #34
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
If you're not trying to stir the pot, you need to go back and read more carefully, please.

If you are trying to stir the pot, knock it off.

The subject is provocative enough without deliberate equivocation to muddy the waters.
I'm open to suggestions. What is hard to understand about "killing terrorists does not stop terrorist attacks"? In order to kill him the attack must have already occurred, and killing him has not stopped his fellow terrorists from going on the next terrorist attack. Killing the terrorists at Beslan did not stop the terrorist attack on the Beslan school, the attack occurred.

We may be talking past each other, it may be semantics, but I really don't understand why some are arguing over this. As I pointed out earlier, eric, slopemeno, troy mclure, carguy2244, mannlicher, ramius, and some others have all basically posted along the same lines, so I'm assuming they understood the issue.

Last edited by David Armstrong; January 9, 2009 at 06:00 PM.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 06:10 PM   #35
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Seems pretty straightforward. If you kill the terrorist after he has shot 20 people, was the terrorist attack stopped? No. The killing stopped, but the attack has already occurred. You may have kept it from being worse, but the attack was not stopped.
If an attack was underway, and now it is not, then it has stopped. This discussion is about a single attack, not terrorism in general.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
No it is not. There is not a single reference to CCW in the thread. There is reference to people being armed, but that is not contingent on CCW.
Well, the primary way for citizens to be armed (especially in America, which WAS mentioned), is CCW. Because of this, the CCW was most definitely implied. We're just splitting hairs now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Fine. My point is that if your goal is to stop terrorist attacks, shooting a terrorist is not a very good way to do that.
See my first comment on this post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Sure seems like it, and only reinforces my point. If you don't understand what is being discussed, you should avoid making "witty, sarcastic reference to it."
Hondo, Double Naught Spy, and onthejon seem just as confused as I am, with comments like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy
You misspoke.
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by onthejon55
so you're saying that attacking a terrorist is useless correct?...
...to point out your flaw in logic.
If these statements are not true, then it seems that they are confused, as I was, though I kind of understand your posts now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
AFAIK, most "others" don't seem to have any trouble, and I don't know how to make it any clearer. Killing terrorists does not stop terrorist attacks. If it did there would not be as many terrorist attacks as we see going on around the world. Arresting rapists does not stop sexual assaults. Shooting murderers does not stop murderous attacks. Killing pirates did not stop pirate attacks.
Please refer to all of my previous comments in this post.

I now understand part of your argument. You are saying that stopping single terrorist attacks does not stop terrorism in general. This, IMHO, is irrelevant since the OP is concerned with preparing for a single attack. I don't know a single ordinary citizen who needs to prepare for every attack, just the one (or a few if they are unlucky) that happens to him. The OP was about armed citizens stopping individual terrorist attacks, not government agencies stopping terrorism in general.

I'm still confused about this, though:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time.
You're talking about terrorists preparing for armed citizens? If armed citizens are never utilized in fear of this, then the terrorists will have nothing to prepare for.

David, I think you need to calm down. No one is attacking you.
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!

Last edited by BuckHammer; January 9, 2009 at 06:13 PM. Reason: clarification
BuckHammer is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 08:16 PM   #36
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
If an attack was underway, and now it is not, then it has stopped.
If the terrorist has killed 20 people was the attack stopped? As raimus put it, "In responding to an attack in progress, the best you can do is mitigate the damage." It's like trying to say that after losing control of your vehicle and hitting two cars, since you were able to get on the brakes and not go over a cliff you stopped the accident.
Quote:
We're just splitting hairs now.
Perhaps. I don't see how the difference between
"carrying guns" and CCW is splitting hairs, given the strong push for open carry in many states.
Quote:
Hondo, Double Naught Spy, and onthejon seem just as confused as I am, with comments like:
Hondo seems to have got it just fine. We seem to have a difference in the semantics, but it seems he understood the meaning of my posts just fine, as did all the others I mentioned. I'm sorry if a few people can't, don't, or won't catch on, but maybe you need to clarify why you can't understand "killing terrorsist does not stop terrorist attacks".
Quote:
You are saying that stopping single terrorist attacks does not stop terrorism in general.
I'm saying that shooting a terrorist who has already started his attack does not stop terrorist attacks. I am saying that the OP's original premise, "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" is inherently incorrect based on historical facts, as many have pointed out. I am saying that once a terrorist has already engaged in his act of terror it is incorrect to claim that the terrorist attack was stopped.
Quote:
You're talking about terrorists preparing for armed citizens? If armed citizens are never utilized in fear of this, then the terrorists will have nothing to prepare for.
I don't understand why it is hard to understand this stuff. Slopemeno pointed out the same thing: "Then that backpack would have had Sarin, or C-4, etc, etc. The tool doesn't matter." Double Naught Spy say: "Right, had the average citizen of Mumbai been armed, the terrorists would have used other means. Determined terrorists will attack." Carguy2244: "rkba and ccw, these make us free men - but not likely to impede terrorist acts."
Quote:
David, I think you need to calm down. No one is attacking you.
I think you need to not make assumptions when it is fairly easy to determine facts. I'm quite calm, thank you, and have seen nothing to cause me to believe anyone is attacking me.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 09:24 PM   #37
Hondo11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
Double Naught Spy,

There's no point in debating the semantics of the phrase "terrorist act", or how much ground its umbrella covers. I'm familiar with what it is and what it isn't. The Wiki version is nice, but there's more to it than that.


This is your quote:

Quote:
Actually, it is motivation that is the distinguishing difference between a terrorist attack and mass murder or serial killing. Unless the attack is carried out against civilian targets for the purpose of bringing about social, political, or religious change, they are not terrorist attacks.
Harris and Klebold attacked a segment of a civilian population who they believed had wronged them with the purpose of intimidating that population, creating fear, and bringing about social change. Are they the classic terrorists that we all think about...Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, al-Qaeda? Nope. Do they meet the definition (which is one of over 100 definition, by the way)? Yep.

But since you read my post so carefully before pulling the trigger, you surely noticed that I didn't equate the typical motivation(s) of the different groups in the first place, but simply pointed out that their methods were similar in some ways. Go sharpshoot somewhere else.
Hondo11 is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 09:39 PM   #38
Hondo11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
Terrorist Acts/Mass Killings:

How do you prevent them? By having good intel and acting on that intel. Having intel can mean "seeing and noting the warning signs and then acting on that information"...whether it's a terrorist cell planning and preparing for an attack or a couple of kids with emotional problems who show the intent to act on their feelings.

How do you stop or impede an attack, regardless of the motivation of the attacker(s)? By having the capability and being in place to use that capability. Since the Israelis keep being brought up, let's use them as an example. The civilian population is generally armed...not all, but to a much higher percentage than Concealed Handgun Permit holders in the States. And not just limited to handguns. Long guns are common.

Why do you suppose this is? Because acts of terrorism have happened frequently in many parts of the country (less so since the wall went up...but it could flare up at any time) and the people need the ability and the means to stop an act that is occuring.

The original poster has a valid question.
Hondo11 is offline  
Old January 9, 2009, 11:32 PM   #39
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,387
Quote:
Harris and Klebold attacked a segment of a civilian population who they believed had wronged them with the purpose of intimidating that population, creating fear, and bringing about social change.
Unless you have some evidence documenting that these guys were trying to effect social change, their shooting doesn't go beyond simple revenge. Change may have resulted, but there isn't any indication that social change was one of their goals, at least not of which I am aware.

And, semantics are critical. Calling all mass shootings and such terrorist acts is a sensationalization that adds attributes to the events that are not present. This is something we like to harp on the media for doing whenever they make more of a shooting than exists or imbue attributes to the shooting that were not present, such as the association of guns with being bad or evil.
__________________
"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 10, 2009, 11:09 AM   #40
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,628
The school shooters usually show a pattern of feeling on the outs in their school and many times have suffered from bullying, esp. homophobic taunting. Thus, they have a revenge motivation and part of that is to show the taunters that they can't get away with it. But that isn't to influence a major societal institution so it changes policies as directly as most acknowledged terrorist acts.

Also, the school shooters usually show some history of psychopathology. Despite some rhetoric most organized terrorists don't have such histories.
__________________
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 10, 2009, 11:54 AM   #41
Hondo11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
Listen, I get it. I know the difference. The point I was making is that sharpshooting my original post (which specifically said there was a difference in motivation but not necessarily in how they're carried out) by using a cut-and-paste "definition" (of which there are over 100...all of them fairly loose) was ridiculous. Many different scenarios and some incidents that have already happened could be made to fit under one of the 100's of definitions of terrorism.


None of which is the purpose of the thread, so I won't further hijack the thread by debating this point.
Hondo11 is offline  
Old January 10, 2009, 01:00 PM   #42
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armsrtong
If the terrorist has killed 20 people was the attack stopped? As raimus put it, "In responding to an attack in progress, the best you can do is mitigate the damage." It's like trying to say that after losing control of your vehicle and hitting two cars, since you were able to get on the brakes and not go over a cliff you stopped the accident.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
...you need to clarify why you can't understand "killing terrorsist does not stop terrorist attacks".
I, in fact, did clarify that I did understand that part. Go back and read it. I understand your position and agree on that point. Terrorists are going to attack no matter what. It's just a matter of setting the level of difficulty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Perhaps. I don't see how the difference between
"carrying guns" and CCW is splitting hairs, given the strong push for open carry in many states.
Current carrying in America WAS mentioned, and the primary method of carry in America is CCW. Talking about the difference in current carry is splitting hairs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
I'm saying that shooting a terrorist who has already started his attack does not stop terrorist attacks.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time.
I believe you are trying to say that if you kill a terrorist in progress, he will resort to other methods of killing (sarine, etc.). But don't you still believe that a terrorist act in progress should be stopped (see my first comment on this post for what I mean by "stopped")? 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. But you have yet to say anything like, "Yes, I believe that if a terrorist attack is in progress, someone ought to attack the terrorist." That's all I've asked for for a while. So, I'm going to pose you the question, David, and I just want a simple yes or no:

Do you believe that a terrorist who is commencing an attack should be attacked?

If yes, then we are in complete agreement, since I have never said anywhere in this thread that an armed populous will end terrorism (see in this post where I say what I mean by "stopped"). If no, then we are not in agreement.

From the OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDRogers
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.
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 agree that it would have happened, but the severity might not have been the same. CDRogers posted this question (which is the topic of the post):
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDRogers
But how many of you go through terrorist scenarios in your mind?
I believe he only mentioned the Mumbai scenario in order to further his point that we should be running through/practicing terrorist scenarios in our mind. But I see that you interpret the main idea of the OP differently:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
it may be open to interpretation
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDRogers
But how many of you go through terrorist scenarios in your mind?
To answer the question posed in this thread (and to try to get it back on topic), I don't run through terrorist scenarios (maybe because I live in Evansville, Indiana and not a major population center), although I probably should.
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!

Last edited by BuckHammer; January 10, 2009 at 01:01 PM. Reason: fixed a random indentation
BuckHammer is offline  
Old January 10, 2009, 01:21 PM   #43
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
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."
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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"?
Quote:
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.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 11, 2009, 09:10 PM   #44
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
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."
Did you even read what you are referring to here? If so, I defy you to find where it disagrees with what you have posted. Let's please stop arguing about this. In both the attack and accident scenarios, its hard to say that the attack hasn't stopped, otherwise it would still be in progress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer
And carrying in India was mentioned, and carry in general, and lots of other things. CCW was NOT mentioned.
Open to interpretation. Whatever. It is ultimately irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer
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.
Yeah, you said that wasn't what you meant, but you have yet to say what you do mean. All I've asked is for you to elaborate in most, if not all of my posts since then about this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time.
but instead, you take several parts of my posts out of context and avoid my request for you to elaborate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Then why do you continue to argue about it unless, as hondo put it, you are just "sharpshooting"?
Read my post, I was not arguing about that. Not everyone is out to get you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
I do not say that. I say the attack could have happened just as it did even with an armed populous.
Which was in reference to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer
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.
If you noticed, I said possibly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
...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.
You seem to imply that a similar attack could happen with means other than guns and grenades. Just saying that maybe you think that there are other possibilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer
Do you believe that a terrorist who is commencing an attack should be attacked?
You missed my question. Next time you post, please answer yes or no. Along with the elaboration I have been asking for for quite some time. You seem to have olympic level of ability when it comes to dodging questions. You should consider running for office. Unless you hold one, in that case, congratulations, you found your calling.
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!
BuckHammer is offline  
Old January 11, 2009, 10:47 PM   #45
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
Did you even read what you are referring to here? If so, I defy you to find where it disagrees with what you have posted. Let's please stop arguing about this.
It takes two to argue, and there is nothing to argue about, IMO. When an attack has already occurred it seems strange to me to try to say the attack was stopped. The attack was not stopped, the attack occurred, you have perhaps reduced the effect of the attack.
Quote:
Open to interpretation. Whatever. It is ultimately irrelevant.
If it is irrelevant why do you keep bringing it up?
Quote:
Yeah, you said that wasn't what you meant, but you have yet to say what you do mean.
I have said exactly what I mean. I have apparently not said what you want me to say, but that is more your problem than mine. Again, most other folks seem to have figured it out just fine, and I have even used quotes from them to attempt to clarify it for you.
Quote:
Read my post, I was not arguing about that.
Sure seems like it, and now you are arguing about if you were arguing about it. LOL!!
Quote:
Not everyone is out to get you.
Again, I do not think so, nor have I said anything to give any indication of that. So I don't know why you would continue to mention it unless you are trying to sharpshoot or start an argument.
Quote:
You seem to imply that a similar attack could happen with means other than guns and grenades. Just saying that maybe you think that there are other possibilities.
There are always other possibilities when discussing issues like this.
Quote:
You missed my question. Next time you post, please answer yes or no.
I didn't miss it at all. I tend to ignore questions where the person posting them demands in advance that I answer them in a certain way.
It is obvious that you are now just trying to bait me into an argument by sniping at me, and I'm actually trying to avoid it. If you have a legitimate question I'll be quite happy to answer it, but if all you want are more "clarifications" of things that have already been clarified, or if you just want to engage in more armchair psychology about what I feel, I see no need to continue this.

Last edited by David Armstrong; January 11, 2009 at 10:52 PM.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 11, 2009, 11:55 PM   #46
onthejon55
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2008
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
When an attack has already occurred it seems strange to me to try to say the attack was stopped. The attack was not stopped, the attack occurred, you have perhaps reduced the effect of the attack.
If an attack has ended, fails to continue, or ceases to persist then it has stopped. If an attack was intended, but never began in the first place, then it was stopped. I figured this out after reading 1 post. Sadly you are on your 4th or 5th post and still cant figure this out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
So I don't know why you would continue to mention it unless you are trying to sharpshoot or start an argument.
Your right. Forums are the wrong place to argue. especially if someone is as horrible at it as you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer
You seem to have olympic level of ability when it comes to dodging questions. You should consider running for office. Unless you hold one, in that case, congratulations, you found your calling.
Hahaha
onthejon55 is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 12:15 AM   #47
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
If an attack has ended, fails to continue, or ceases to persist then it has stopped.
Was the attack at Beslan stopped? Was the attack at Mumbai stopped? I don't think so. Hard to claim you have stopped an attack when there are a hundred folks dead from the attack. As I have said before, some of you seem to confuse stopping a terrorist with stopping a terrorist attack. The two are often very different. You don't stop a murder after somebody has been murdered, even though you stop the murderer.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 12:26 AM   #48
onthejon55
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2008
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
Was the attack at Beslan stopped? Was the attack at Mumbai stopped?
It was not stopped but it has stopped. Unless of course there are people still being killed in Beslan and Mumbai.

Quote:
Hard to claim you have stopped an attack when there are a hundred folks dead from the attack
.

It a terrorist attack isnt stopped then why dont terrorist just kill millions of people at one time?

Quote:
As I have said before, some of you seem to confuse stopping a terrorist with stopping a terrorist attack.
Im pretty sure that it is physically impossible for a terrorist who has been "stopped" aka "killed" to carry on attacking people
onthejon55 is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 12:45 AM   #49
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
I like raimus' phrasing: "In responding to an attack in progress, the best you can do is mitigate the damage."
What action(s) would you recommend to "mitigate the damage" of a Mumbai-like attack if you were consulted shortly after it began?
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 12, 2009, 01:00 AM   #50
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Hard to claim you have stopped an attack when there are a hundred folks dead from the attack.
You made me do the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
stop
–verb (used with object)
1. to cease from, leave off, or discontinue: to stop running.
2. to cause to cease; put an end to: to stop noise in the street.
3. to interrupt, arrest, or check (a course, proceeding, process, etc.): Stop your work just a minute.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stop
According to Dictionary.com, the attacks have stopped. Please stop insisting that the attacks have not stopped. I say they have stopped, you say they were stopped, both are true. Stop implying that only one is true. Do you understand this definition? It is very difficult to have a debate or discussion with someone who will not understand this, despite the numerous times that I have tried to make it clear. I could say that the attacks were stopped (meaning discontinued), and you could say that they were not stopped (meaning prevented) and we would both be correct!

When I make posts, and you refuse to rebut them, or answer them, you fail. I am not asking you to answer my questions in a certain way, I just want you to answer them. You do not, thus you fail.

It is very hard to argue with someone who only accepts one or two of the definitions of stop, when there are more than FORTY on the URL that I have presented. This shows ignorance and stubbornness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
if you just want to engage in more armchair psychology about what I feel
I just want answers and clarifications. When you do not answer or clarify (on something that you have definitely NOT made clear), I have to try to figure how you might answer. If you have made clear what I ask previously, please either quote yourself, guide me to your post numbers, or just say what you mean in your next post. It really isn't that hard. I don't even see a reason for your stubborn resistance. You constantly think I'm trying to bait you into an argument:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
It is obvious that you are now just trying to bait me into an argument by sniping at me
Don't try to say you don't think that because you stated it in plain English. I am not trying to do this, not everyone is out to get you. Not everyone is luring you into an argument, just relax or something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
If you have a legitimate question I'll be quite happy to answer it
Yes, I sure do have a legitimate question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer
Do you believe that a terrorist who is commencing an attack should be attacked?
I fail to see how that is not a legitimate question and/or baiting into an argument. I don't really care how you answer. I just want an answer. I am not baiting you into an argument, if/when you answer, I promise that I will not argue with you about your answer, and if I do, then you can cite this and call me out on it.

If you notice, I have not cited the parts in your posts where you argue about the things that I declared that I will not argue about or that we agree on .
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!
BuckHammer 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 11:28 PM.


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 0.16658 seconds with 7 queries