Via Firehand I found this quote:
So you think that ordinary citizens armed with handguns would slow down a surprise attack by trained paramilitary forces armed with automatic weapons, grenades and who knows what else? I’m curious how you see that scenario playing out.
The way I see it, if terrorists such as these could rely on a “significant number” (and I don’t know what that means, exactly - 10 percent? 20 percent?) of their targets carrying guns, they wouldn’t bother taking hostages. They’d just slaughter everyone in sight. They might take a few hits, but they’d have planned for that, just like any army would.
My answer, being a professional soldier, is that private citizens carrying firearms would save the lives of OTHER citizens by slowing down and disrupting the plans of the attacking force, and possibly prematurely ending the attack.
In Israel armed citizens have stopped attacks, and it was a Holocaust survivor who saved lives at Virginia Tech by using his body and a door.
My other opinion, being a professional soldier, is that nobody plans for every contingency. The best thing we can do, that we do, is plan a desired endstate and give our soldiers all the resources they need to bring about that endstate within the restrictions placed on us.
My final observation, this pussy overestimates the enemy. The enemy is a poorly fed religious fanatic who received only enough training to do the job his handlers need him to do. His handlers train him to do one specific series of tasks, and that is it. He is not a thinker, not trained to adjust on his own.
5 comments:
Terrorists,by definition, spread terror as a means of creating the political change they seek.
It is impossible to terrorize an armed man or armed group of people.
Yes, the terrorist may kill some by surprise,but they WILL kill him and that very shortly.
The attack will NOT create the mass fear that political change requires.
Strong armed people don't get fearful and submit, they get mad and kill.
That sort of response is from the terrorist's pov, rather counterproductive.
The only thing that prevents terorism, is an armed response.
karl
You and karl are spot on. The weak, frightened SOB's want everyone dis armed so their cowardliness does not show.
Thank you for your service and your writing.
Fred
"It is impossible to terrorize an armed man or armed group of people."
Obviously, you didn't see the police during Columbine: They cowered outside behind their vehicles till the shooting stopped, then went in after the bad guy once everyone had been slaughtered. They were paralyzed, not by the terrorists' weapons, but by the ACLU's clout, and probable consequences if they shot anyone else by mistake.
This is the kind of protection we can look forward to, if we ever let Der Schtaat disarm us.
The Police weren't the ones terrorized at Columbine.
The unarmed students were.
The Columbine shooters didn't target the police station.
When someone gets inside your OODA loop often the only thing you can do is find cover and try to properly orient your actions.
Bottom line, "the guy who would rather roll over and piss himself" is a bigger problem than terrorists:
We have become "too civilized for our own good", as one columnist put it. Those charged with the duty "to protect and to serve" are locked up behind bars of politically-correct/new-tone rules of engagement and practically bound and gagged by judicial activist red tape. They cannot protect us if Obamanation disarms us, and their unions pretty much say, given the stacked-deck legalities, they don't have to, either.
"Gun free safe zones" create shooting galleries for terrorists and other mass-murderers.
Post a Comment