Terrorist Scenarios

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CDRogers

Inactive
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
 
"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."
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Mass murders still happen in places where there is concealed carry and so it most definitely could have happened in Mumbai.

Then that backpack would have had Sarin, or C-4, etc, etc. The tool doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Right, had the average citizen of Mumbai been armed, the terrorists would have used other means. Determined terrorists will attack.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

your right a 9mm to the jugular is pretty much useless
 
David Armstrong said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 :rolleyes:.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
Strange that you would say that to agree with David, since David did not say that.

your right a 9mm to the jugular is pretty much useless
Click to expand...
Nor did David say that. Very strange how people want to try to put words into others mouths.
 
David Armstrong said:
Strange that you would say that to agree with David, since David did not say that.
Click to expand...
BuckHammer said:
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 .
Click to expand...
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:
David Armstrong said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :rolleyes:

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top