Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Mumbai: Why hasn't it happened here yet? Opportunity for pro-2a effort?

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    11-11-03
    Location
    New Jersey Highlands
    Posts
    2,128

    Mumbai: Why hasn't it happened here yet? Opportunity for pro-2a effort?

    After 911, I often thought that a terrorist could do quite a bit of damage to the economy by heading to the heartland and shooting up a big mall. Or doing what they are doing in Mumbai in LA or NYC.

    Why hasn't that happened here yet? I can understand the middle America thing, they'd have to expect volleys of return fire.

    But in NYC or LA or Chicago - folks are just as disarmed as those poor people in Mumbai.

    We are reading that their police aren't as apparently well armed as ours. On the other hand, my experience with that part of the world is that life is often not held in the same regard which might limit the response capabilities of our police i.e. they couldn't play war on the streets of NY because they'd be crippled by concerns for collateral damage and all the associated repercussions. That could balance the equation i.e. our police wouldn't be a greater deterrent Vs theirs . . . .

    Given the media and gun grabbers theory that there is a greater availability of guns here vs disarmed countries, you'd think it would be easier to assemble this kind of operation here.

    Which leaves the question - Why hasn't it happened here yet? And if it is because of guns in the hands of the people, is there some way to leverage this in defense of the second amendment?

  2. #2
    Member  
    Join Date
    04-30-08
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,947
    Yeah, in my state, we wouldn't stand much of a chance unless the shooting carried over to residential areas where people have their guns. I really wish that something like that doesn't happen here because it will inevitably call for more gun bans.

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    08-13-08
    Location
    Baton Rouge, La
    Posts
    210
    Why hasn't that happened here yet? I can understand the middle America thing, they'd have to expect volleys of return fire.
    Unless those volleys are coming from prepositioned SWAT teams, I strongly disagree. Even in 'middle America' very few average citizens carry firearms. In most states which issue ccw permits, generally less than 1% of the population will apply for those permits. Of those getting permits, maybe a quarter of them will regularly carry a pistol with them as they go about their shopping. Most will leave it at home or in the car. Many of these law abiding citizens will honor the No Weapons signs posted in most malls. They will be unarmed.
    When the Evil Doers show up and start spraying the crowd there will be little chance of armed resistance unless an off duty police officer just happens to be nearby and is armed with a concealed pistol and decides to get involved.
    You read and post on a gun forum. You have guns around you as part of your regular routine. You are in a small minority. Your neighbors and fellow citizens are out shopping today and very few of them have the tools or the mindset to respond to a violent threat.
    That's reality.

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-16-07
    Posts
    3,241
    Why hasn't it happened here yet?
    Because we are an Armed Society.

    Had they tried this in the Good old USA they likely would have come upon a CCW holder and dropped in their tracks. Unless they're in CA or NYC.

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-21-05
    Location
    Sachse, Texas
    Posts
    869
    One of the reasons that the Soviets were afraid to invade America was due to the pervasiveness of privately owned firearms here.

    As to why it hasn't happened here? Besides the above reason:
    1) Manifest Destiny.
    We're friendly with both countries on our borders; so it'd be difficult for invaders to get here that way. We also have quite a bit of ocean on our other two borders.

    2) Our police are very well armed and trained
    Assuming someone DID get here, they'd probably be cornered by police pretty quickly. One of the positive aspects of having more gun crime than most places is that our police forces are much better trained to handle it than most other countries.

    Also, as an aside, what do you think even our armed criminals would do if we were invaded? I'm (trying) to write a novel about an invasion of America, and that's one of the plot points...
    יזכר לא עד פעם (Remember. Never Again.)

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-07-07
    Posts
    6,090
    Well actually it has happened a couple of times already... by Jihadists...

  7. #7
    Administrator   
    Join Date
    12-19-02
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    10,433
    One of the reasons that the Soviets were afraid to invade America was due to the pervasiveness of privately owned firearms here.
    The real reason was they couldn't afford to take over one of their largest enablers. USA has always supported the USSR with money and materiel. It started in the late 1920s and stayed that way even through much of the cold war.

    Even NYC and Chicago residents are not as disarmed as the Indian population. Their government makes the UK look good by contrast.
    Oleg Volk
    A Human Right | Blog

  8. #8
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-13-06
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    2,369
    The real reason was they couldn't afford to take over one of their largest enablers. USA has always supported the USSR with money and materiel. It started in the late 1920s and stayed that way even through much of the cold war.
    +1.

    I also suspect that, realistically, the pretty safe assumption there'd be a general nuclear exchange before the first Soviet troops parachuted on in Red Dawn-style gave them a lot more pause than the prospects of widespread gun ownership here in the US. (Same reason meant we'd never invade the USSR either, for that matter.)

    Why hasn't that happened here yet? I can understand the middle America thing, they'd have to expect volleys of return fire.
    Probably just regarded as too much risk of the operation being compromised before go-time or too quickly resolved by law enforcement on one hand and too little pay off on the other compared to bombings for your international jihadi al-Qaeda types. I suspect at this point that years of being outshot in fire fights by US troops over there would tend to discourage the idea over here as well.

    Wouldn't rule out its possibility for homegrown jihadists, if we ever start seeing comparable guys to the UK suicide bombers. If we ever have to deal with ostensibly law-abiding US citizens (who happen to be Muslims) going on an rampage with legally purchased EBRs, whatever else happens, I'd say expect the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban to look tame by comparison to what will end up coming down the pipeline . . .

  9. #9
    Moderator  
    Join Date
    11-30-07
    Location
    Co. Springs
    Posts
    7,499

    With All Due Respect

    The only reason it hasn’t happened here yet is because no one’s come up with a feasible plan to do it yet
    It is your dissatisfaction with what IS that is the source of all of your unhappiness. Matthew Scudder

  10. #10
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-03-04
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    129

    Why not here?

    Because the current President looked at that as an attack on the US. We weren't going to wait to bekilled in our zip code, we'll fight you in yours.

    New President, all bets are off. Oh wait we could just ask the EU to protect us. I give it 1/20/09 and 360 days, unless of course France steps in
    "I would advise persisting in our struggle for liberty, though it were revealed that 999 men were to perish, and only one of a thousand to
    survive and retain his liberty. One such freeman must possess more virtue, and enjoy more happiness, than a thousand slaves." - Samuel Adams - 1774

  11. #11
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,656
    It's only very specific scenarios (not to discount them!) where even a widespread exercise of concealed carry would make any difference. As someone's pointed out, we *have* had multiple, coordinated Jihadist terror attacks in the U.S. It's possibly possible that armed *passengers* could have made more of a difference -- we'll never know precisely what went on in any of those planes -- but widespread peaceful carry, whether open or concealed, would have had nothing to do with the outcome there unless carry laws went very much father than they're likely to. ("Please keep your gun under the seat in front of you for the duration for takeoff and landing. When the captain illuminates the Handgun sign, you are free to move about the cabin, but please for the safety of your fellow passengers keep your trigger within the holster unless in use.")

    That may *not* have been true in Mumbai; probably no one of the terrorists had to give much thought to the possibility he'd encounter an armed American or British citizen in India. But if that had been more likely, it's something a terrorist would (or could) plan around. (And therefore it's a good thing, IMO; terrorists *should* have to "plan around" threats to their insanity.)

    timothy

  12. #12
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-30-08
    Location
    Blue River Wisconsin, in a little hut in the woods
    Posts
    3,530
    New President, all bets are off. Oh wait we could just ask the EU to protect us. I give it 1/20/09 and 360 days, unless of course France steps in
    Durn it, I needed a warning. I'm eating supper, (turkey day left overs), Got stuffing coming out of my nose. I don't recommend it.
    1934 – National Firearms Act, 1968 – The Gun Control Act, 1986 – Firearms Owners Protection Act, 1993 – Brady Handguns Violence Act, 1994 – Assault Weapons Ban, 1995 – Gun Free School Zones Act, NO MORE COMPROMISING

  13. #13
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    01-02-03
    Location
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Posts
    9,685
    Just why would we WANT to invade Russia? Or China, for that matter?

    It's cheaper to buy the natural resources out from under them.
    Resume available upon request.
    Have good references.
    Can pass any number of drug screens.

  14. #14
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    11-11-03
    Location
    New Jersey Highlands
    Posts
    2,128
    Because the current President looked at that as an attack on the US. We weren't going to wait to be killed in our zip code, we'll fight you in yours.
    Wonder if history will give him credit for it . . . . and maybe you're right with respect to the rest. Had we not gone over there maybe we would have seen more action here.

  15. #15
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-12-06
    Posts
    2,086
    There's one giant reason why we haven't been attacked: logistics. Terrorists couldn't care less about armed citizens shooting back; that's a miniscule threat, and it's doubtful they're even aware of it.

    The same geographical and cultural isolation that kept us essentially untouched throughout every 20th century conflict is still just as important of a defense as it has been in the past. To pull off attacks of that magnitude on our shores requires a tremendous recruiting effort, an even better training system, and an extremely large sum of money. 9/11 was fundamentally easy compared to arming, equipping, organizing, and deploying what amounts to trained teams of infantry. Getting jihadists 7000 miles around the globe without being detected isn't all that easy. It could be done, but only if they first had individuals of a high enough caliber to know what to do, how to think outside of the box, and capable of seeing such a plan through...and somehow Middle Eastern villages aren't exactly known for producing first-rate global strategists. It's far easier for them to literally drive next door and shoot up their historic enemies down the block. So that's what they do.

    It's the same principle that applies to regular criminal activity. Sure, there's millions of dollars sitting in Fort Knox, but it's a long ways away and really hard to break into, so 99.999% of criminals are going to settle for busting into the local Wachovia waving around a Hi-Point. Because fundamentally, they're generally going to be complete idiots.
    "Training errors are recorded on paper. Tactical errors are etched in stone." -Erwin Rommel
    Explanations exist: they have existed for all times, for there is always an easy solution to every problem — neat, plausible and wrong. - H.L. Mencken

  16. #16
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,404
    After 911, I often thought that a terrorist could do quite a bit of damage to the economy by heading to the heartland and shooting up a big mall. Or doing what they are doing in Mumbai in LA or NYC.
    I highly doubt that we will see a true terrorist shoot up a mall. The reason is that they need to induce terror. Any complete idiot can shoot up a mall and the result will be a quick and effective deterrent, armed citizens (where allowed), metal detectors, police positioned on site, etc.

    A terrorist is looking for something that is difficult to detect, induces mass destruction, and is difficult to defend against. People carrying guns capable of mass destruction is easy to detect and, quite frankly, does not induce much for fear or destruction.

    Oh, and another thing, the perpetrators must have little chance of actually surviving. A terrorist that survives can give up information, names, places, and most importantly, not get into that special place in the afterlife. They believe they will reach a special level of paradise, I have a different idea of what the afterlife holds for them.

    History has shown the terrorists have very creative minds. Shooting up a mall is not very creative. Also, history has shown that a moving van packed full of diesel fuel and fertilizer is quite effective in inducing fear and destruction. There is also much less paperwork involved than stocking up on guns and ammunition.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  17. #17
    So far, the count is 11 terrorists caused three days of mayhem and killed 160 people including up to ten professionals.

    So, were I to plan an attack here in the US with 10 professional terrorists, assuming I couldn't pre-place weapons but just needed to assault and hold whilst killing as many innocents as possible, just off the cuff and without giving it any more thought than it takes me to type these words, here's a short list of targets in gun-free Chicago: Summer Camps, Concert Halls, Theatre Mega Complex's, Amusement Park's, Brookfield Zoo, Museum of Science & Industry, Navy Pier at the Freat Chicago Taste Fest, McCormick Place, The Aquarium, Wrigley Field, Sears Tower (let them find my crew running around that place), Hospitals, Schools. How about faking an accident on any major highway that leads to any major city, after 30 minutes when thousands of vehicles are at a stand still, my 10 guys ride 5 motorcycles down the lanes with the rider carrying an Uzi or AK.
    Why hasn't it happened? It will. All these are scenerios that have been contemplated by the experts, I'm not giving anything away. Best case scenario would be hundreds dead, many hundreds more wounded.
    Two years ago, an Al Queida list was discovered, in it was the list of more than ten major cities that they would target, probably in preperation for a dirty bomb. It's just a matter of time.

  18. #18
    Woke this morning and read that the Indian Police are estimating that the Terrorist Group numbered closer to 25. In footage shown, seems they were militarily trained the way they moved, not saying they were or weren't military, just trained in a military fashion. They moved in formations with point men. Paints a whole different picture!

  19. #19
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    08-07-06
    Posts
    402
    In Mumbai the people in the neighborhood where the Jewish Center was THREW ROCKS to try to drive off the gunmen and defend the Jewish Center. Number one, obviously there was a lot of love for the activities of that Jewish group. Number two, they threw rocks until driven off by gunfire and grenades, with casualties and fatalities. Gutsy as hell from the Indians, but do you really think the best we could do here is rocks?

    John

  20. #20
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-29-07
    Location
    Bouncing between the 909 and the 702
    Posts
    1,226
    "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
    Last edited by Quiet; November 29th, 2008 at 02:25 PM.
    "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

  21. #21
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    01-02-03
    Location
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Posts
    9,685
    Gangs in St. Louis use military tactics. That crap ain't new.

    They target soft/symbolic targets. Schools. Churches. World Trade Centers. Washington DC area drivers.

    Imagine what would happen if two dozen terrorists started doing drive-bys on wal-marts...
    Resume available upon request.
    Have good references.
    Can pass any number of drug screens.

  22. #22
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,404
    Imagine what would happen if two dozen terrorists started doing drive-bys on wal-marts...
    There would be speed bumps, concrete barricades, and increased police patrols. A drive-by, to be effective, requires proximity between the moving vehicle and the target. Keep the vehicles separated from the people and the drive-bys will not happen again.

    I have heard of many times where terrorists (as opposed to a common criminal) used bombs and/or moving vehicles to inflict damage. I recall only one incident where a group of terrorists decided shooting up a shopping center was a good idea. That attempt was thwarted by armed citizens in short order.

    I just don't see terrorists using a shooting as a tactic. Not only do I see a shooting as ineffective given more mayhem could be done more effectively with other weapons but we, as Americans, see enough gang shootings that we've become desensitized to it. True terrorists would want to make sure their actions could not be mistaken for just more of the same gang on gang shootings.

    I suppose a terror group could go on a shooting spree but it would be unlike anything we've seen before. They would likely take steps that there would be no survivors, such as having a bomb vest detonate once they've run out of ammunition. They would also try to hit a symbolic target, not Wal-Marts. They'd probably target political figures, and/or a monument.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  23. #23
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-02-08
    Posts
    335
    Obviously it has not happened because the NRA, republicans and "pro gun" people make it too easy for terrorists to get these weapons in the USA. At least according to the Brady people.

    Realisticly it has not happened here because it has not happened here. I'm sure at some point it will. Hopefully it happens in a location that allows people other than LEOs to meet force with force.

    According to a show on the History channel I saw, the Texas college/Charles Whittman shooting was not as deadly as he had hoped for because many STUDENTS started returning fire with hunting rifles stored in vehicles, thus keeping his head down till PD could move in for the kill.

    FFMedic

  24. #24
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-31-05
    Posts
    4,230
    professional terrorists
    That is a great phrase and really gets to the heart of what I think might be the most probable answer. There really is no reason that all the things talked about in this thread aren't possible. I just don't think there really are that many "professional terrorists."

    There are kooks like this guy
    but they're not the brightest or most capable group of people. I don't believe that the number of capable organized people who would wish to do something like talked about in this thread really exist.
    Every social movement (*snip*) that tries to break the bonds of mindless convention and tradition and that defies established privilege gets accused of being rude and worse, much worse, and there are always weak apologists for the status quo who use that pathetic etiquette excuse to try and silence the revolutionaries. Successful revolutionaries ignore the admonitions about which fork to use for their salad because they care only to grab the steak knife as they launch themselves over the table. -- Richard Dawkins

  25. #25
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-26-02
    Location
    Occupied Montanistan
    Posts
    11,489
    Getting jihadists 7000 miles around the globe without being detected isn't all that easy.
    My guess is that after accomplishing that, said jihadists see how great life is in the USA and decide maybe a suicide attack isn't all that attractive ...
    Governments don't live together. People live together.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •