India gun control enabled Mumbai slaughter

D

DadaOrwell

Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
308
Likes
124
Location
Manchester NH
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Well obviously it must have been gubermint agents who took part in this massacre as common people in India couldn't have armed themselves so.
 
Apparently this was a well coordinated attack, military in nature. I don't know if individual Indians armed with self defense weapons would have made much difference.

From reading this it appears that the attackers used military tactics in the attacks. This comprises a substantial change in tactics and is very worrisome.
 
Garys said:
Apparently this was a well coordinated attack, military in nature. I don't know if individual Indians armed with self defense weapons would have made much difference.

From reading this it appears that the attackers used military tactics in the attacks. This comprises a substantial change in tactics and is very worrisome.
Click to expand...

It is tempting for folks to think a die hard scenario is possible but it is not and a handful of armed citizens may have made this harder for them, but these guys were going to be successful regardless of armed citizens. Plus, how many countries allow tourists to carry? Even if the Indian population was armed, the tourists these guys attacked were targets, pure and simple. For any sort of citizen based defense to have been successful, the ratio of CCWs to non-ccws would need to have been on the order of 1 in 10 or better, whereas I have to believe it is more on the order of 1 in thousands even in free states. And even with that better than 1 in 10, you would have seen a lot of casualties, likely much more than you see here, in order to have squashed this.
 
terraformer said:
It is tempting for folks to think a die hard scenario is possible but it is not and a handful of armed citizens may have made this harder for them, but these guys were going to be successful regardless of armed citizens. Plus, how many countries allow tourists to carry? Even if the Indian population was armed, the tourists these guys attacked were targets, pure and simple. For any sort of citizen based defense to have been successful, the ratio of CCWs to non-ccws would need to have been on the order of 1 in 10 or better, whereas I have to believe it is more on the order of 1 in thousands even in free states. And even with that better than 1 in 10, you would have seen a lot of casualties, likely much more than you see here, in order to have squashed this.
Click to expand...

The first attack was against the local police station, where they killed several officers and then they split up and attacked the main targets. Which means that these guys had this planned out and were well trained. Far different than some of the more amateurish terrorists we've seen.

There's even a possible connection to the Somali pirates in this attack.
 
Garys said:
The first attack was against the local police station, where they killed several officers and then they split up and attacked the main targets. Which means that these guys had this planned out and were well trained. Far different than some of the more amateurish terrorists we've seen.

There's even a possible connection to the Somali pirates in this attack.
Click to expand...

Yeah, leaving 14 dead so numerical superiority seems to have also been a key to success on the PD (estimates I have pieced together are 25 or more BGs), in addition to what you mentioned. The nice thing about CCWs are you can't predict when and where, so it becomes a wild card. You can train to handle/neuter wild cards, but that will always be a post facto defense. Hence why it is not outside the realm of reasonableness to think a large enough population of them could have been somewhat effective.
 
terraformer said:
Yeah, leaving 14 dead so numerical superiority seems to have also been a key to success on the PD (estimates I have pieced together are 25 or more BGs), in addition to what you mentioned. The nice thing about CCWs are you can't predict when and where, so it becomes a wild card. You can train to handle/neuter wild cards, but that will always be a post facto defense. Hence why it is not outside the realm of reasonableness to think a large enough population of them could have been somewhat effective.
Click to expand...

In truth the biggest effect would have been to cause them to change targets during the planning stage. Certainly having an unarmed populace made this much easier. They took out the police first and then hit the soft, unarmed, targets.

They could do something like this in many areas of the world, and even some parts of this country.

Here's more: http://tinyurl.com/5e96zj
 
Last edited:
I do not see where "India's draconian gun laws" played a role in facilitating this week's massacre.

A well organized group could accomplish the same result in Downtown Dallas Texas during a NRA convention if they so chose and planned accordingly.
 
i think some people dont give enough credit to some of these terrorists and their skills as warfighters.
a lot of these people in that area are veterans of the soviet-afghanistan war and america-afghanistan. Indian special forces were called in and were having a lot of difficulty taking out some of the attackers here.
in this case, not only were the terrorists skilled, they were also well armed as usual with explosives, grenades and the usual AK-47's.

i know a lot of you guys have seen those goofy videos of some of these guys training, but in reality it can literally be more training then some of the people in the US military have. ive seen people deploy that have literally never fired a m16 until they were at MOB station (were they could fire as little as 49 rounds total, and then get sent to a combat zone) because they transferred in from another branch of the military.

so, what im guessing im trying to say, is the normal concealed carry person would be better off throwing themself out a window in attempt to escape then fight a bunch of insane, well armed, and skilled opponents by themselfs
 
From what I've read, they had at least 40 people, 20 of them in place for some time. The Ts had scouted the targets and had a well-planned attack ready and were coordinated.

They were also very well trained and gave the Indian counter-terror forces one Hell of a fight.

So let's see...Me and my carry gun at the train station.... Five guys suddenly start throwing frags around the room, using effective cover and blasting away with well-aimed automatic weapons fire....I might get real lucky and get some rounds into one before they capped my ass, but I doubt I'd be able to do much more.

Armed citizens can do a pretty good job fighting a lone gunman. But trying to take on several very well trained guys, probably wearing body armor with vastly superior firepower and the element of surprise? Gimme a break... Too many people wanna pretend they're Rambo.

This would be a nightmare situation for the best trained counter-terrorist cop, assuming he was armed while on vacation or on the way home from work, probably resulting in his death trying to stop the carnage. For most of us, it would be a matter of a small distraction for the Ts as they blew us away before getting back to business.

The rule for people with some training taking on people with better weapons and superior training, is lots of the lesser trained dying to kill ONE of the better-trained, better armed.

The calculus can work in a long insurgency, but a s a tactical matter, the guys with the better training and superior weapons win the day pretty much every time.
 
One of the best rug merchants in that part of India is located in the Taj. My sister-in-law's family bought their rug there in 2006. It's kind of a weird feeling seeing these places on the news and then opening the photo album and seeing your 1yo son smiling at you in an almost identical photo.

Luckily, my wife's family wasn't anywhere near the area. (her dad grew up about 15 miles from the Taj Hotel before he came to the US for school)

Gun control in India is quite strict, but in speaking to my wife's family about it, actual access isn't all that hard. In fact, I saw several 'stores' openly selling arms during my travels.

I wonder how many more "radical Muslims" causing these kind of events have to occur before people start to profile harshly. I fear these kind of things will only incite the public into making very bad judgments.
 
Chris said:
I wonder how many more "radical Muslims" causing these kind of events have to occur before people start to profile harshly. I fear these kind of things will only incite the public into making very bad judgments.
Click to expand...

I think it's gonna get really bad in India between the Hindus and Muslims for a while.

A friensd of mine who is an Indian woman, and a professor of Philosophy and Religion at a university here told me the problem with Muslims have been their absolute intolerance of the the Hindus.
She once told me:
"We've tolerated every religion very well. Hinduism in most of it's variants looks for the similarities in other's beliefs and simply adapts. But the Muslims won't tolerate us, so we haven't tolerated them very well either."

One thing about Islam is it's absolute intolerance and abhorence for polytheists. The Islamic approach to this system is basically "convert or die." There's a reason Pakistan is a separate State. And it ain't about politics, it's about religion.

If any of you folks believe in a God, pray for peace, because there could be a regular bloodbath coming soon in reaction to this.
 
Half Cocked said:
I do not see where "India's draconian gun laws" played a role in facilitating this week's massacre.

A well organized group could accomplish the same result in Downtown Dallas Texas during a NRA convention if they so chose and planned accordingly.
Click to expand...

I was born in Dallas. Dallas does not have gun freedom. Few Americans live in areas that do.

When was the last successful attack on a gun show, gun convention, rifle range, etc?
 
If you moved from a green town in MA to TX, VA, AZ, NM, FL, MT or a host of other shall-issue "free" states, you'd find that the list of "off limits" places was, in each case, substantially longer than in MA. The upside is that these other states do not have the concept of green/red/black town, and require a due process to revoke a carry license.
 
DadaOrwell said:
When was the last successful attack on a ... rifle range, etc?
Click to expand...

I have heard there have been a few at SoCal ranges by gangbangers looking to restock and I have heard of ambushes outside of MVGC dating back many years ago. Both of those stories come from reputable sources, and frankly I am surprised it doesn't happen more often.
 
When was the last successful attack on a gun show, gun convention, rifle range, etc?
Click to expand...
I believe a successful attach on a police station was part of the situation in Mumbai.

Platt and Mattix (the bad guys in the Miami FBI shootout) obtained some of their weapons by shooting some recreational target shooters at an informal range.
 
Last edited:
Half Cocked said:
Agreed...and a few residents with CCW would have made no difference.
Click to expand...

No guarentee that it would have made a difference but when you meet resistance where you are not expecting any it can slow you down, cause you to make a different decision which would possibly have given more people time to escape etc.
 
Bill Nance said:
I think it's gonna get really bad in India between the Hindus and Muslims for a while.

A friensd of mine who is an Indian woman, and a professor of Philosophy and Religion at a university here told me the problem with Muslims have been their absolute intolerance of the _____________.
Click to expand...

There I fixed it for you. It has been the radical Islamists intolerance of any other religion that has caused a lot of these problems.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
If you moved from a green town in MA to TX, VA, AZ, NM, FL, MT or a host of other shall-issue "free" states, you'd find that the list of "off limits" places was, in each case, substantially longer than in MA. The upside is that these other states do not have the concept of green/red/black town, and require a due process to revoke a carry license.
Click to expand...

I was just in Texas and the list of posted places (Ft Worth), was none. That's different than Dallas, which had a lot the last time I was there. A friend of mine drove in from Louisiana and stopped at a sporting goods store back home. He bought an AR, a Glock 17, an over under shotgun, and a .22 single action. He was able to continue on to Texas without having to leave anything behind, lock anything, or put anything in a case. He also had a Taurus with him. The only thing he could not do was carry concealed on his person. That was only because he has never had a need for a LA CHL, but he's going to get one because he travels between the two states frequently.

Oh, we were also able to shoot the .22 on another friend's property. That was in an unincorporated area south of Fort Worth. The state left it up to us to ensure our own safety.

Try that in your back yard in the greenest of towns and see what happens.

Finally, I can carry in Texas on my MA LTC as long as I follow Texas rules and regulations about where I carry.

I can't agree that we have one iota of freedom more than TX or LA residents do.
 
I can't agree that we have one iota of freedom more than TX or LA residents do.
Click to expand...
In total we have less, but there are specific instances where we have more freedom in MA. Which state, TX or MA, provides for a criminal charge if you violate a no-guns sign at a place of public access such as a shopping mall? Which state, TX or MA, requires that you perform an audit of the alcohol vs. total revenue of an eating establishment to determine if you commit a crime by entering with a firearm on your person?
 
Rob Boudrie said:
In total we have less, but there are specific instances where we have more freedom in MA. Which state, TX or MA, provides for a criminal charge if you violate a no-guns sign at a place of public access such as a shopping mall? Which state, TX or MA, requires that you perform an audit of the alcohol vs. total revenue of an eating establishment to determine if you commit a crime by entering with a firearm on your person?
Click to expand...

Which state, TX or MA gives unfettered discretion to a police chief to issue, deny, or revoke, a license to carry? Which state, TX or MA requires you to have a state issued permit to buy ANY gun or ANY ammunition? Which state, TX or MA allows a police chief to revoke your license if you eat at a place that serves alcohol because he feels that such behavior makes you "unsuitable"?

We can play that game all week long, if you want.
 
Bill Nance said:
So let's see...Me and my carry gun at the train station.... Five guys suddenly start throwing frags around the room, using effective cover and blasting away with well-aimed automatic weapons fire....I might get real lucky and get some rounds into one before they capped my ass, but I doubt I'd be able to do much more.
Click to expand...

It is very difficult to disagree with your above statement however I think the "hope" is that you wouldn't be alone in CCW. Five well trained BG's versus twenty poorly trained regular guys carrying 45's...

It would change the outcome at least slightly. If nothing else, it would send a strong message back that we are not an unarmed populace as to openly believed, that we are willing to fight back.

Again, just a "hope", right?
 
We can play that game all week long, if you want.
Click to expand...
All of what you say is absolutely true. My point was that the rights accepted by the govt. in TX, although greater in total than those in MA, are not a strict superset of those in MA.
 
terraformer said:
It is tempting for folks to think a die hard scenario is possible but it is not and a handful of armed citizens may have made this harder for them, but these guys were going to be successful regardless of armed citizens. Plus, how many countries allow tourists to carry? Even if the Indian population was armed, the tourists these guys attacked were targets, pure and simple. For any sort of citizen based defense to have been successful, the ratio of CCWs to non-ccws would need to have been on the order of 1 in 10 or better, whereas I have to believe it is more on the order of 1 in thousands even in free states. And even with that better than 1 in 10, you would have seen a lot of casualties, likely much more than you see here, in order to have squashed this.
Click to expand...

I should point out that I am think that the terrorists were specifically targeting Jewish people.

They had researched the area. They must have prepared maps. They must have figured out response times. I think that they laid their work on lots of preparation.

I think it is very scary.

bill
 
I have to be honest, and you can call me a sissy if you want. If I'd been at the train station where they were throwing frags and mowing people down you know what I'd have done even IF I was carrying? HIDE.

Sure, I'd get out my carry gun, and if the opportunity presented itself I might take a shot. But mostly it would be out because I wanted to take one of them with me in case he came close.

I'm not trained or prepared to deal with that kind of situation. When I was carrying (Which I can't here, thanks so much City of Lowell..cough..spit) I also did my very best to train myself in defensive pistol use. I was dead accurate with it and while armed was in a sort of yellow-alert phase all the time.

But even then I would in no way have been able to do more than maybe get one of the bad guys before going down, and the smartmove would have been to take cover, hide and hope you didn't have to use the gun.

I'd certainly WANT to be armed in such a situation, but the idea that a bunch of civilians with CCWs would have done much more than present some more targets for well-trained terrorists is wishful thinking.
 
I doubt even a bunch of armed citizens there could have done much about this, considering the number of attackers, nature of the attack, etc. Even if people killed off a few of them they probably would just keep going.

That being said, people should always be given the chance/choice to protect themselves, even if sometimes it might not seem to make a difference- it's an ethical tenet based around the issue of natural rights.

-Mike
 
Garys said:
I was just in Texas and the list of posted places (Ft Worth), was none. That's different than Dallas, which had a lot the last time I was there.
Click to expand...

To add to this, even a lot of the places that are posted, aren't really PC 30.06 compliant. This is important to understand, as those which have signage that isn't in compliance, those signs become legally meaningless. Folks I've talked to from TX say very little of the state has compliant signage in it.

-Mike
 

Similar threads

Paul Craig: Gun control debate a fractured discourse
Replies
2
Views
130
jkelly1229
J
Gun Control Debate Live Stream
Replies
18
Views
613
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Biden Vows 2nd Term Gun Control, Criticizes Jefferson’s ‘Tree of Liberty’ as ‘A Bunch of Crap’
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
45Badger
45Badger
NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
1K
StevieP
StevieP
Kurt Russell's take on Gun Control
2 3
Replies
67
Views
3K
houdini
houdini
Back
Top Bottom