Armed Terrorist Assaults in the U.S.

Status
Not open for further replies.

308win

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
2,919
Location
Ohio - The Heart of it All
Note- the text of the report linked below has been copied into this thread below, with the permission of STRATFOR. See Post #4. -- lpl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Stratfor analysis is approximately 1/2 devoted to terrorist actions in the U.S. using firearms as opposed to explosive devices. Approximately 1/2 into the analysis the discussion of terrorist actions using firearms begins.

The analysis identifies soft targets that are no weapons zones as the most opportune targets and identifies the fact that a significant percentage of the U.S. population is armed as a major deterrent.

Situational awareness and training are both highlighted as important skills.
 
thank you for the link. Good reading.

IMO as a European, what we would call "Mumbai-style" attacks
would be the most devastating around here.

Doing that in a city like Frankfurt, Paris, Berlin .... etc
... would be horrible. All you have to do is get the guys
and AKs, ammo, handgrenades into the country

The response and training time for an event like that
would be way more devastating in europe than in the US IMO.

City-police has received training for clearing buldings
like schools in amok situations.
But although i believe the local Fast-reaction-Unit is well trained
and up to it .... a squad of 4-10 trained insurgents will be able to
wreak extreme havoc on a tourist-frequented spot in "insert-Top5-here"
on the european mainland.

Compare to car bombs in iraq on market squares ...
Doing that here .. it will leave way more trails for CIA, BND, Mossad ...etc
than one cell smuggling the AKs and one cell entering
to pick them up.

..,we usually do not have war vets in our Swat-tams ... maybe some ... but
it´s not like they are trained for infantry battle like the average marine squad.
But if it comes to ca. 12 of our Swats vs an insurgent Platoon out to just kill
innocent people ... i think they would have a lot of time to "act" before
well trained police have arrived in adequate numbers.

Our local city cops are very nice, respectful and funny
in a coastal-german-silent way. They only do serious stuff.
They do not harass drinkers, peddlers or nice folks who smoke pot.
They do an excellent job according to the area they are in,
( Hamburg, St.Pauli, Redlight, Wordlfamous.Bla ..)
and i believe they would put up a fight, no question about that.

But, until the main force, local Police with Mp5s and the Swat show up ......



--- end of rant ---
 
The terrorists been having a lot of failures with attempted bombings of late in the US. A big bomb isn't as easy to put together as some folks seem to think. This makes the possibility of multiple coordinated Mumbai style attacks in sports stadiums and urban cores more likely, and difficult to prevent. There aren't any large scale explosives to put together, only caches of small arms. LEO's tend to have weapons and armor for dealing with very lightly armed criminals--not guys with full powered rifles. The little taste of this came in the Fort Hood shootings, but that guy really didn't know what he was doing and it was only one man.
 
"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/2010...readmore&elq=3b5d46fef52b4aceaf303b0f48c7e638


From Failed Bombings to Armed Jihadist Assaults
May 27, 2010 | 0855 GMT
By Scott Stewart

One of the things we like to do in our Global Security and Intelligence Report from time to time is examine the convergence of a number of separate and unrelated developments and then analyze that convergence and craft a forecast. In recent months we have seen such a convergence occur.

The most recent development is the interview with the American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki that was released to jihadist Internet chat rooms May 23 by al-Malahim Media, the public relations arm of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). In the interview, al-Awlaki encouraged strikes against American civilians. He also has been tied to Maj. Nidal Hasan, who was charged in the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the perpetrator of the failed Christmas Day 2009 airline bombing. And al-Awlaki reportedly helped inspire Faisal Shahzad, who was arrested in connection with the attempted Times Square attack in May.

The second link in our chain is the failed Christmas Day and Times Square bombings themselves. They are the latest in a long string of failed or foiled bombing attacks directed against the United States that date back to before the 9/11 attacks and include the thwarted 1997 suicide bomb plot against a subway in New York, the thwarted December 1999 Millennium Bomb plot and numerous post-9/11 attacks such as Richard Reid’s December 2001 shoe-bomb attempt, the August 2004 plot to bomb the New York subway system and the May 2009 plot to bomb two Jewish targets in the Bronx and shoot down a military aircraft. Indeed, jihadists have not conducted a successful bombing attack inside the United States since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Getting a trained bombmaker into the United States has proved to be increasingly difficult for jihadist groups, and training a novice to make bombs has also been problematic as seen in the Shahzad and Najibullah Zazi cases.

The final link we’d like to consider are the calls in the past few months for jihadists to conduct simple attacks with readily available items. This call was first made by AQAP leader Nasir al-Wahayshi in October 2009 and then echoed by al Qaeda prime spokesman Adam Gadahn in March of 2010. In the Times Square case, Shahzad did use readily available items, but he lacked the ability to effectively fashion them into a viable explosive device.

When we look at all these links together, there is a very high probability that jihadists linked to, or inspired by, AQAP and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) — and perhaps even al Shabaab — will attempt to conduct simple attacks with firearms in the near future.

Threats and Motives

In the May 23 al-Malahim interview (his first with AQAP), al-Awlaki not only said he was proud of the actions of Hasan and Abdulmutallab, whom he referred to as his students, but also encouraged other Muslims to follow the examples they set by their actions. When asked about the religious permissibility of an operation like Abdulmutallab’s, which could have killed innocent civilians, al-Awlaki told the interviewer that the term “civilian” was not really applicable to Islamic jurisprudence and that he preferred to use the terms combatants and non-combatants. He then continued by noting that “non-combatants are people who do not take part in the war” but that, in his opinion, “the American people in its entirety takes part in the war, because they elected this administration, and they finance this war.” In his final assessment, al-Awlaki said, “If the heroic mujahid brother Umar Farouk could have targeted hundreds of soldiers, that would have been wonderful. But we are talking about the realities of war,” meaning that in his final analysis, attacks against civilians were permissible under Islamic law. Indeed, he later noted, “Our unsettled account with America, in women and children alone, has exceeded one million. Those who would have been killed in the plane are a drop in the ocean.”

While this line of logic is nearly identical to that historically put forth by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the very significant difference is that al-Awlaki is a widely acknowledged Islamic scholar. He speaks with a religious authority that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri simply do not possess.

On May 2, the TTP released a video statement by Hakeemullah Mehsud in which Mehsud claimed credit for the failed Times Square attack. In the recording, which reportedly was taped in early April, Mehsud said that the time was approaching “when our fedayeen [suicide operatives] will attack the American states in their major cities.” He also said, “Our fedayeen have penetrated the terrorist America. We will give extremely painful blows to the fanatic America.”

While TTP leaders seem wont to brag and exaggerate (e.g., Baitullah Mehsud falsely claimed credit for the April 3, 2009, shooting at an immigration center in Binghamton, N.Y., which was actually committed by a mentally disturbed Vietnamese immigrant), there is ample reason to believe the claims made by the TTP regarding their contact with Shahzad. We can also deduce with some certainty that Mehsud and company have trained other men who have traveled (or returned) to the United States following that training. The same is likely true for AQAP, al Shabaab and other jihadist groups. In fact, the FBI is likely monitoring many such individuals inside the United States at this very moment — and in all likelihood is madly scrambling to find and investigate many others.

Fight Like You Train

There is an old military and law-enforcement training axiom that states, “You will fight like you train.” This concept has led to the development of training programs designed to help soldiers and agents not only learn skills but also practice and reinforce those skills until they become second nature. This way, when the student graduates and comes under incredible pressure in the real world — like during an armed ambush — their training will take over and they will react even before their mind can catch up to the rapidly unfolding situation. The behaviors needed to survive have been ingrained into them. This concept has been a problem for the jihadists when it comes to terrorist attacks.

It is important to understand that most of the thousands of men who attend training camps set up by al Qaeda and other jihadist groups are taught the basic military skills required to fight in an insurgency. This means they are provided basic physical training to help condition them, given some hand-to-hand combat training and then taught how to operate basic military hardware like assault rifles, hand grenades and, in some cases, crew-served weapons like machine guns and mortars. Only a very few students are then selected to attend the more advanced training that will teach them the skills required to become a trained terrorist operative.

In many ways, this process parallels the way that special operations forces operators are selected from the larger military population and then sent on for extensive training to transform them into elite warriors. Many people wash out during this type of intense training and only a few will make it all the way through to graduation. The problem for the jihadists is finding someone with the time and will to undergo the intensive training required to become a terrorist operative, the ability to complete the training and — critically — the ability to travel abroad to conduct terrorist attacks against the far enemy. Clearly the jihadist groups are able to train men to fight as insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they have shown the ability to train terrorist operatives who can operate in the fairly permissive environments of places like the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. They also have some excellent bombmakers and terrorist planners in Iraq and Pakistan.

What the jihadists seem to be having a problem doing is finding people who can master the terrorist tradecraft and who have the ability to travel into hostile areas to ply their craft. There seems to be a clear division between the men who can travel and the men who can master the advanced training. The physical and intelligence onslaught launched against al Qaeda and other jihadist groups following the 9/11 attacks has also created operational security concerns that complicate the ability to find and train effective terrorist operatives.

Of course, we’re not telling the jihadists anything they don’t already know. This phenomenon is exactly why you have major jihadist figures like al-Wahayshi and Gadahn telling the operatives who can travel to or are already in the West to stop trying to conduct attacks that are beyond their capabilities. Gadahn and al-Awlaki have heaped praise on Maj. Hasan as an example to follow — and this brings us back to armed assaults.

In the United States it is very easy to obtain firearms and it is legal to go to a range or private property to train with them. Armed assaults are also clearly within the skill set of jihadists who have made it only through basic insurgent training. As we’ve mentioned several times in the past, these grassroots individuals are far more likely to strike the United States and Europe than professional terrorist operatives dispatched from the al Qaeda core group. Such attacks will also allow these grassroots operatives to fight like they have been trained. When you combine all these elements with the fact that the United States is an open society with a lot of very vulnerable soft targets, it is not difficult to forecast that we will see more armed jihadist assaults in the United States in the near future.

Armed Assaults

Armed assaults employing small arms are not a new concept in terrorism by any means. They have proved to be a tried-and-true tactic since the beginning of the modern era of terrorism and have been employed in many famous attacks conducted by a variety of actors. A few examples are the Black September operation against the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics; the December 1975 seizure of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries headquarters in Vienna, led by Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, aka “Carlos the Jackal”; the December 1985 simultaneous attacks against the airports in Rome and Vienna by the Abu Nidal Organization; and the September 2004 school seizure in Beslan, North Ossetia, by Chechen militants. More recently, the November 2008 armed assault in Mumbai demonstrated how deadly and spectacular such attacks can be.

In some instances — such as the December 1996 seizure of the Japanese ambassador’s residence in Lima, Peru, by the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement — the objective of the armed assault is to take and intentionally hold hostages for a long period of time. In other instances, such as the May 1972 assault on Lod Airport by members of the Japanese Red Army, the armed assault is planned as a suicide attack designed simply to kill as many people as possible before the assailants themselves are killed or incapacitated. Often attacks fall somewhere in the middle. For example, even though Mumbai became a protracted operation, its planning and execution indicated it was intended as an attack in which the attackers would inflict maximum damage and not be taken alive. It was only due to the good fortune of the attackers and the ineptitude of the Indian security forces that the operation lasted as long as it did.

We discussed above the long string of failed and foiled bombing attacks directed against the United States. During that same time, there have been several armed assaults that have killed people, such as the attack against the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles International Airport by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet in July 2002, the shooting attacks by John Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo in the Washington area in September and October 2002 and the June 2009 attack in which Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad allegedly shot and killed a U.S. soldier and wounded another outside a Little Rock, Ark., recruiting center. The most successful of these attacks was the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting, which resulted in 13 deaths. These attacks not only resulted in deaths but also received extensive media coverage.

Armed assaults are effective and they can kill people. However, as we have noted before, due to the proficiency of U.S. police agencies and the training their officers have received in active shooter scenarios following school shootings and incidents of workplace violence, the impact of armed assaults will be mitigated in the United States, and Europe as well. In fact, it was an ordinary police officer responding to the scene and instituting an active shooter protocol who shot and wounded Maj. Hasan and brought an end to his attack in the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood. The number of people in the American public who are armed can also serve as a mitigating factor, though many past attacks have been planned at locations where personal weapons are prohibited, like the Los Angeles International Airport, Fort Hood and Fort Dix.

Of course, a Mumbai-like situation involving multiple trained shooters who can operate like a fire team will cause problems for first responders, but the police communication system in the United States and the availability of trained SWAT teams will allow authorities to quickly vector in sufficient resources to handle the threat in most locations — especially where such large coordinated attacks are most likely to happen, such as New York, Washington and Los Angeles. Therefore, even a major assault in the United States is unlikely to drag out for days as did the incident in Mumbai.

None of this is to say that the threats posed by suicide bombers against mass transit and aircraft will abruptly end. The jihadists have proven repeatedly that they have a fixation on both of these target sets and they will undoubtedly continue their attempts to attack them. Large bombings and airline attacks also carry with them a sense of drama that a shooting does not — especially in a country that has become somewhat accustomed to shooting incidents conducted by non-terrorist actors for other reasons. However, we believe we’re seeing a significant shift in the mindset of jihadist ideologues and that this shift will translate into a growing trend toward armed assaults.
 
The police, bless their pointy little heads, are quite capable of handling the Mumbai attack styles. There's a world of difference between terrorists armed with readily available rifles and hand-guns, and the jihadists our troops face in the Middle East. There, the terrorists use RPGs,belt-fed weapons, grenades, and the likes. Here, those items would be extremely difficult to obtain, and train with.

In Mumbai, the local police refused to engage the terrorists, no matter the tactical situation. Here, the mind-set is different, and the equipment and communications are much better.

Terrorists are still a threat. However, seeing a Mumbai success story in an American City of like size strains the imagination.
 
JR47, I think most of us understand what even one guy with a rifle who knows how to use it could do to a city, including an American city. You don't need belt fed weapons or RPG's to set up shop and reign terror on thousands for hours before anyone can stop you. I'm the last one to jump on WOT bandwagons or get paranoid, but this is a real threat that needs to be taken a lot more seriously. As the people at the core of the shooting sports across the country, we need to at least be aware of this potential in the backs of our minds. If something seems wrong to those of us who know the legitimate world of shooting, it probably is wrong. And may be worth a call to the authorities.

As it stands, I'm not convinced that US law enforcement is prepared for this, certainly not outside of a few major cities. Their stock in trade is domestic violence and traffic enforcement. Both of which are hard, dangerous work. But a very far cry from trying to hit some sniper in a bunker or a bunch of them shooting people in a stadium. Heck the ARMY wasn't ready for it at Fort Hood! The ARMY couldn't protect itself from even a very hair-brained and ill conceived attack by a portly psych major with more than a few screws loose himself. A few hard core jihadis with sufficient range time and the will to die could have done a lot more damage.

So just keep an eye out at the ranges, in the field and in FTF transactions.
 
Last edited:
It seems possible to me that the articles purpose is not to draw attention to the obvious that firearms could be used in a terrorist attack but perhaps to set the stage to float the concept of greater regulation and restrictions of firearms for the greater good.

While the do not fly list keeps politicians and children from flying, other entry points to this country remain as porous as ever.

Fox News reported today that the border patrol caught around 45,000 non-Hispanic individuals attempting to illegally cross into the U.S. from Mexico last year. I did not hear an estimate on how many non-Hispanics successfully entered the U.S. from Mexico illegally and undetected. If the terrorists were going to do something they could have assembled a small army in the U.S. and done it by now if they wanted to.

A challenge to Mumbai type of attacks in the U.S. is the widespread ownership of firearms, the prevalence of military training amongst a significant percentage of the population and the willingness of Americans and others to confront terrorist evil without regard for themselves. Look at what happens on aircraft that have had terrorist attempts or even unruly passengers since 9/11--passengers literally climb over one another to stop emerging threats as quickly as possible and without regard for their personal safety.

Another problem that terrorists would create for "their people" were they to engage in widespread use of firearms for terrorism in the U.S. is the backlash from groups and lone wolf vigilante's against innocent individuals who even appear to be Middle Eastern or Muslim.

There are so many unprotected soft targets available and so many unrestricted inexpensive, boring, common non-firearm, non-explosive items that could be used to terrorize. The only way to prevent terrorism would be to completely shut down the free movement of people and to restrict or confiscate many of the apparently harmless items that people take for granted in a free society.

I have no doubt there are many terrorist cells within the U.S. to believe otherwise would be naïve. Will they attack us? Who knows. We can all play a calm relaxed role in anti-terrorism efforts just by being aware of what our normal environments look like and if something seems out of place consider saying something. Like they say in New York, "if you see something, say something."
 
He then continued by noting that “non-combatants are people who do not take part in the war” but that, in his opinion, “the American people in its entirety takes part in the war, because they elected this administration, and they finance this war.”

So if we reverse this crazy logic, this means that since Muslims have been attacking Americans, then all Muslims are terrorists, and should be shot on sight.

Just goes to show that this psycho wants to kill all Americans.

It will be worse, before (if) it ever improves.
 
JDoe said:
A challenge to Mumbai type of attacks in the U.S. is the widespread ownership of firearms, the prevalence of military training amongst a significant percentage of the population and the willingness of Americans and others to confront terrorist evil without regard for themselves. Look at what happens on aircraft that have had terrorist attempts or even unruly passengers since 9/11--passengers literally climb over one another to stop emerging threats as quickly as possible and without regard for their personal safety.

Do not make assumptions. Comparing post 9/11 plane flights is apples and oranges. There are 200 +/- people on a plane and of those, it is usually known who / where / what the threat is. Also, there is no chance of responders being confused with the threat. Unlike the NYC subway system or downtown of most major cities.

Supposing a Mumbai incident occurred, the worst possible outcome would be that a CHL / concerned citizen responded ineffectively, or worse, confused the situation. Escape and Evasion are the name of the game.


JR47 said:
In Mumbai, the local police refused to engage the terrorists, no matter the tactical situation. Here, the mind-set is different, and the equipment and communications are much better.

+1

After Mumbai, you had a lot of so called commentators that were crapping on the Enfield's and revolvers the police had. I would have traded a weapon for a radio. None of those guys had one... Get them radios before you get them AK's or AR's.
 
It doesn't have to be our 'official' set of terrorists as teams of rampage shooters drawn from the school kid set have happened. Columbine and the school with the young shooters (Jonesboro? - duh) both had two shooters. The former was a failed bombing but the later was a rather clever false fire alarm to draw out the victims in the the fire zone.

The DC Snipers and TX tower show that we can generate our own shooters. Wasn't there an arrested set of Islamic terrorist suspects who wanted NFA weapons but didn't get them?

Who would have thought that exploding shoes, underpants and suicide planes would have happened? Paranoid?

As far as the CCW type being incapable of response? That is a mixed bag - we have some successes and some defenders who screwed up in rampages.

While fleeing is a great choice (not to start the hero argument), it is possible that if a rampage or terrorist action starts - you have some familarity with tactics and gun usage. The Tacoma mall defender and Tyler TX defender came to ill due to poor tactics when the action went down.
 
A challenge to Mumbai type of attacks in the U.S. is the widespread ownership of firearms
The vast majority of which, are at home or 'in the car, just in case'. Even here in the South, the majority of gun owners I know don't carry regularly, or just throw a 5-shot snub in their pocket with no reload. Heck, I know lot's of cops who don't carry off-duty.

The majority of Americans, with a few notable exceptions, are not prepared for a Mumbai-type incident. To quote Gabe Suarez:
The days of training to keep muggers, gang members, and common criminals at bay with your "civilian self defense" CCW five-shot J-Frame revolver are over.

Carry your fighting pistol everywhere you go. Learn the combat skills you will need to prevail in a terror attack. Train hard, and be prepared. The enemy is not coming, he is already here....and you are his target.
 
Carry your fighting pistol everywhere you go. Learn the combat skills you will need to prevail in a terror attack. Train hard, and be prepared. The enemy is not coming, he is already here....and you are his target.

That sent a chill up my spine,too bad it's the truth.
 
The vast majority of which, are at home or 'in the car, just in case'.

There you go, exactly. And even those who do carry handguns have only small handguns to use. That's no match for trained, rifle-armed assailants. Take the Tacoma Mall and Tyler courthouse shootings as examples. The citizen, at most, distracted the shooter before being killed or horribly injured.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/tacoma_tyler.htm

To these points, I would add, don't bring a handgun to a rifle fight. Keep a carbine handy. Train to shoot early and often, not to give warnings. If there is imminent illegal deadly force, train to shoot, not to wait for the person to face you. Once the legal toggles are in green, you should shoot him right in the back of the head if you can, without warning. Hesitation is death.
 
Fort Hood? The surrounding civilian population was better armed than the men and women on the base. It's easy to shoot up a bunch of unarmed, and mobility-limited people.

Note that many of these attacks are so successful due to the populations being unarmed by local laws. The school attacks all took place in "gun free" zones. Mumbai doesn't allow it's residents to go about armed, either.

Are we talking about the total number of casualties in an incident? Yes, a trained team of assailants, armed with high-capacity weapons, could conceivably rack up a score before police could intervene. So what? The shooters aren't going to surrender, and you only get to die once. It's not like they'll be back later.

Face it, the WORST shooting incidents in America still injure and kill fewer than most multi-car accidents on highways, or bus accidents.

There will be attacks caused by newly interpreted "terrorists". I say that because the interpretation of a "terror attack" is being more and more widely interpreted, as much to garner ever more funding, as anything.

Now, we have determined that a disgruntled, depressed, and mentally unstable person with a gun is a "domestic terrorist". Pretty soon, armed robbery will meet that new criteria, too.

The idea that people must carry a "fighting handgun" is ludicrous. The choice is more accurately carrying the kind of weapon that you WILL keep on you versus carrying something capable of battling your way against trained, heavily armed, and motivated teams, until you can reach a fighting rifle.

It's NOT the gun. It's the determination to use it well. Lose the High Noon mentality, and remember that ambushes can work both ways. The bad guys are going to have to come to you, not the other way around. The news reporters in Mumbai SAW the perps, but, being unarmed, were unable to do anything but duck. The police lacked the determination to engage the shooters, even in ambush.
 
JDoe
It seems possible to me that the articles purpose is not to draw attention to the obvious that firearms could be used in a terrorist attack but perhaps to set the stage to float the concept of greater regulation and restrictions of firearms for the greater good.

That would be someone else's purpose, not the article's. See this from the end of paragraph 19.

The number of people in the American public who are armed can also serve as a mitigating factor, though many past attacks have been planned at locations where personal weapons are prohibited, like the Los Angeles International Airport, Fort Hood and Fort Dix.

Were such an attack to occur here, though, I don't doubt that it would be used to call for more restrictions on arms and the private ownership thereof.
 
To these points, I would add, don't bring a handgun to a rifle fight. Keep a carbine handy.
I would agree, except it's difficult in 21st century USA to carry a carbine to church, work, school, the grocery store, mall...

Advanced handgun training has been my major priority for the last few years, as that will probably be the weapon at hand if anything ever goes down. I'm not likely to have the ability to run to the car and get my AK or pistol caliber carbine.

And if I did make it that far more than likely I ain't goin' back in.
 
Last edited:
I'm not likely to have the ability to run tot he car and get my AK or pistol caliber carbine.

No, but you may be in the car, at home or in the office. And if it's possible to keep even a simple bolt action in those places, that can make all the difference.
 
No, but you may be in the car, at home or in the office. And if it's possible to keep even a simple bolt action in those places, that can make all the difference.

Other than the family business, I never worked anywhere that would have allowed me to bring a rifle/carbine into work.

Then again, a buddy of mine is the boss at his business (commercial property mgmt) and he installed a gun safe in his office in which are at least a couple rifles, pistols, and ammo.
 
There, the terrorists use RPGs,belt-fed weapons, grenades, and the likes. Here, those items would be extremely difficult to obtain, and train with.

Extremely difficult? No. As easy as bringing in a truckload of illegals or drugs across the border.
 
I carry an M1 carbine just about everywhere with me. Desperately need an oiler and sling for it, to increase the amount of places I carry it. Open carry is legal in idaho. I don't remember reading anywhere that I had to carry a pistol or nothing.

I really need to get the shoulder stock and harness for my C96. It's a little less obtrusive than the carbine, but approximately as effective in full configuration.

hevi,

This is S&T, not politics. We need to stay on topic and not get off into the geopolitical and other aspects of the article. The fact that it did mention armed citizens is the only reason the thread is still running, let's stay focused on that.

Truth is, it makes little practical difference whether an active shooter is a terrorist or a disgruntled individual with a gun and a chip on their shoulder. It's what they are doing that makes them a threat, not why they are doing it. And if we are in the vicinity at the time, it is our problem to sort out as best we can. At that point the politics don't matter- good decisionmaking, sound tactics and if necessary, careful shooting on our part do.

lpl
 
*buffer size again*

I guess what I'm trying to say is the very thing I learned during childhood: The worst thing you can conceive of is possible. There are a hundred different tools that they could bring to an attack, and none of 'em make pretty results.

Our societal level of complacency is going to hurt us, but we can learn too. We're going to have to learn to be what we once were. We are going to have to take action on a personal level to keep our lives. Our only option at this point is for each to prepare themselves as much as they can, and continue living. You worry about fire? you get a smoke alarm. You worry about crashing? you wear your seatbelt. You worry about starving, you store food. It's a daily part of your life that you must maintain. You can't live in fear, but neither can you be complacent. Almost everybody on this forum would be armed 100% everywhere if they could. So, do as close as you can within the limits of the law. Keep a beater semiauto carbine or rifle with several mags around. Carry a pistol with an extra mag or a speed loader. Can't really take any more decisive action as a citizen.

And if I'm all there is available, and I have a way of resisting people who wish death on all my countrymen I will do so. I may die doing it, but then that's no more than I expect of the men and women on the ground in the Middle East right now. But for my eyesight I WOULD be there.

Either be ready or don't is all you can do in the end. You either is is or is ain't.
 
Cosmoline said:
Tyler courthouse shootings as examples. The citizen, at most, distracted the shooter before being killed or horribly injured.

Unless I am mistaken, the Tyler CCW responder was an "instructor". I know that there are all manner of instructors out there and we can debate that another time, but he knew the business end of a gun. The Shooter was wearing armor. Had he not, the situation would have been much different. Thanks for the link though.

Edit:

There are people out there that try to declare expertise or notoriety by crapping on others. I don't know who "syd" is, but it seems pretty obvious to respond to a dead CCW carrier that he should have had a "bigger gun, or more training or more bullets".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top