Posted on 12/10/2008 10:32:55 PM PST by neverdem
Edited on 12/12/2008 1:41:36 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I’m all for guns, but let’s face it: 10 people on a mission can kill a lot of people, anywhere.
Thousands upon thousands of people were present at the sites of the crime, yet nearly everyone was powerless to realistically do anything about it. What a sin.
Especially if they target happy-go-lucky vacationers, and the like.
It's not like they walked up to Fort Dix.
True, but the loss of life would have been reduced by orders of magnitude if even a few civilians had been properly armed.
Out of "tens of thousands" present during the atrocity, there would have been far more than that, if India's citizens had a right to keep and bear arms.
The larger point, is that the terrorists targeted these people specifically because they knew they were disarmed. Sitting ducks, just ripe for slaughter.
A free people, unencumbered in their natural, and God-given right to self-defense would never have been targeted by terrorists to begin with.
Or for that matter, anyplace in the state of Texas. Among other reasons, it's why I live here.
Yes, I am pro-2nd-amendment. However a well trained commando style terrorist can cause a lot of deaths in a few seconds in a crowded place, before some one with a handgun or shotgun or rifle can take him out. Surprise is the main weapon of terrorists.
So they target pockets of weakness: and there are many out there, too many. Densely populated areas are particularly vulnerable, so armed citizens would be limited to overcome a broad-based terrorist attack, but yes, some kind of resistance would be, at least, somewhat effective in reducing the carnage.
they can kill our trained and armed soldiers so why should be afraid of civilians who are casual gun owners at best?
The real problem is a general policy of appeasement and being soft. Gun control is just one part of a larger problem.
Very true. This could have happened in the most pro gun, right to carry, shall issue state in the US, and likely the same thing would have happened. Even in states and localities where people can carry, so very few actually do on a regular basis. The only difference if it happened here would have been the fact that our police forces in our country tend to be better trained/equipped and would have had a much more aggressive response to the attacks, with exception to Littleton Colorado.
Not if they were entirely unencumbered in their natural, and God-given right to self-defense. That was my point, remember?
You may not live in a place where our 2A rights are in widespread and everyday usage. If so, I can understand your perception.
However, in a place where gov't has little interference with 2A rights, you quickly realize how futile and suicidal such ideas of mass murder are.
Criminals and terrorists aren't brave. They intentionally choose weak targets. Areas which are known for widespread weapons ownership are avoided by both criminals, and terrorists out of sheer cowardice and common sense.
I am all for law abiding civilians to own guns. My point was
that it won’t stop terrorism. It may help reduce deaths and injuries when and if some one with better skills than the well trained Mumbai style terrorists can out gun them.
It’s easy to play hero after the fact, isn’t it?
Well, looking at say, Iraq, where it looks like everybody has got a full-auto AK47, we haven't see a Mumbai style attack, at least not one that's widely publicized. I think this is because terrorists may be evil, but they aren't dumb. They know their target. If they think a bomb will do better, they'll bomb.
Indeed, I think Mumbai demonstrates that when terrorists decide to strike a disarmed populace, they don't need to expend themselves in a suicide bombing. They simply bring along the guns which were removed from the citizens and start shooting.
"Just a fly in the ointment, Hans. The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass."
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
No... When I carry a firearm, if people start shooting at me I will defend myself as I am seeking cover. If you'd like to stand around confused, and be a target, that's your choice.
Cobra’s statement was about self defense, not being a hero. A good shot with a pistol could have plugged one of the murderers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.