Our Biggest Immediate Terrorist Threat

Not a nuke…

Not a plane…

Small arms fire.

Our local police do not have the resources to respond to a large scale small arms attack on a community. Look what happens when ONE person brings a gun into a movie theatre… Or when ONE person brings a gun into a scool or LAX. 20+ get killed and have the entire police department scrambling. Now imagine if 10-20 organized terrorists with ak 47s hit 10 different high traffic areas in the same city at the same time. The Boston bombing killed 3, imagine the death toll in this scenario.

How would we prevent or contain this?

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Not a nuke…

Not a plane…

Small arms fire.

Our local police do not have the resources to respond to a large scale small arms attack on a community. Look what happens when ONE person brings a gun into a movie theatre… Or when ONE person brings a gun into a scool or LAX. 20+ get killed and have the entire police department scrambling. Now imagine if 10-20 organized terrorists with ak 47s hit 10 different high traffic areas in the same city at the same time. The Boston bombing killed 3, imagine the death toll in this scenario.

How would we prevent or contain this?
[/quote]

Dude, police agencies in North America already exercise too much authority and are militarized beyond what is reasonable. You want to give the jackbooted thugs more power?

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Not a nuke…

Not a plane…

Small arms fire.

Our local police do not have the resources to respond to a large scale small arms attack on a community. Look what happens when ONE person brings a gun into a movie theatre… Or when ONE person brings a gun into a scool or LAX. 20+ get killed and have the entire police department scrambling. Now imagine if 10-20 organized terrorists with ak 47s hit 10 different high traffic areas in the same city at the same time. The Boston bombing killed 3, imagine the death toll in this scenario.

How would we prevent or contain this?
[/quote]

If enough of our CITIZENS were legally armed, you wouldn’t be asking that question.

Hey I’ve got a novel idea! How about stop importing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Muslims into your country? How about that?

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Not a nuke…

Not a plane…

Small arms fire.

Our local police do not have the resources to respond to a large scale small arms attack on a community. Look what happens when ONE person brings a gun into a movie theatre… Or when ONE person brings a gun into a scool or LAX. 20+ get killed and have the entire police department scrambling. Now imagine if 10-20 organized terrorists with ak 47s hit 10 different high traffic areas in the same city at the same time. The Boston bombing killed 3, imagine the death toll in this scenario.

How would we prevent or contain this?
[/quote]

If enough of our CITIZENS were legally armed, you wouldn’t be asking that question.[/quote]

Could you clarify your position? What is the role of an armed citizen in the event of a mass shooting? Is it to have a fighting chance to get out of danger, or are you entering buildings and clearing rooms looking for the shooters?

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Not a nuke…

Not a plane…

Small arms fire.

Our local police do not have the resources to respond to a large scale small arms attack on a community. Look what happens when ONE person brings a gun into a movie theatre… Or when ONE person brings a gun into a scool or LAX. 20+ get killed and have the entire police department scrambling. Now imagine if 10-20 organized terrorists with ak 47s hit 10 different high traffic areas in the same city at the same time. The Boston bombing killed 3, imagine the death toll in this scenario.

How would we prevent or contain this?
[/quote]

If enough of our CITIZENS were legally armed, you wouldn’t be asking that question.[/quote]

That’s exactly what i’m thinking.

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Not a nuke…

Not a plane…

Small arms fire.

Our local police do not have the resources to respond to a large scale small arms attack on a community. Look what happens when ONE person brings a gun into a movie theatre… Or when ONE person brings a gun into a scool or LAX. 20+ get killed and have the entire police department scrambling. Now imagine if 10-20 organized terrorists with ak 47s hit 10 different high traffic areas in the same city at the same time. The Boston bombing killed 3, imagine the death toll in this scenario.

How would we prevent or contain this?
[/quote]

Dude, police agencies in North America already exercise too much authority and are militarized beyond what is reasonable. You want to give the jackbooted thugs more power? [/quote]

No. What would you propose would be the best way to deal with the situation? The police and National Guard will get there eventually, but hundreds would be dead by then.

It is not the intended/proper roll of local police/authorities to prevent such an event. No good could come from adding it to their list of duties.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
It is not the intended/proper roll of local police/authorities to prevent such an event. No good could come from adding it to their list of duties. [/quote]

May not necessarily be there duty to gather intelligence and prevent, but it sure is there duty to respond. How do you think we should deal with the situation?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Hey I’ve got a novel idea! How about stop importing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Muslims into your country? How about that?[/quote]

Yes, because all terrorist are of the religious variety and the vast majority of mass shootings in the United States have been perpetrated by Muslims.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
It is not the intended/proper roll of local police/authorities to prevent such an event. No good could come from adding it to their list of duties. [/quote]

May not necessarily be there duty to gather intelligence and prevent, but it sure is there duty to respond. How do you think we should deal with the situation? [/quote]

Preventing such a scenario is only possible under a heavy handed autocracy. Joe citizen should not be conducting counter-terrorism operations in this scenario. Civilians’ role in such a crisis would be to bunker up and make themeselves hard targets.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Hey I’ve got a novel idea! How about stop importing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Muslims into your country? How about that?[/quote]

Yes, because all terrorist are of the religious variety and the vast majority of mass shootings in the United States have been perpetrated by Muslims.[/quote]

Let’s cut the bullshit okay?

“…there have been at least 60 Islamist-inspired terrorist plots against the homeland since 9/11, illustrating the continued threat of terrorism against the United States. Fifty-three of these plots were thwarted long before the public was ever in danger, due in large part to the concerted efforts of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence.”

I know they’re not “real” Muslims and that Islam is a religion of peace but someone forget to tell them that.

Another possible scenario: the next major terrorist attack in the continental US could potential serve whatever political party’s in power as the equivalent of the Reich-stag fire. That would be an unintended, unimaginable nightmare situation in itself.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Not a nuke…

Not a plane…

Small arms fire.

Our local police do not have the resources to respond to a large scale small arms attack on a community. Look what happens when ONE person brings a gun into a movie theatre… Or when ONE person brings a gun into a scool or LAX. 20+ get killed and have the entire police department scrambling. Now imagine if 10-20 organized terrorists with ak 47s hit 10 different high traffic areas in the same city at the same time. The Boston bombing killed 3, imagine the death toll in this scenario.

How would we prevent or contain this?
[/quote]

Dude, police agencies in North America already exercise too much authority and are militarized beyond what is reasonable. You want to give the jackbooted thugs more power? [/quote]

No. What would you propose would be the best way to deal with the situation? The police and National Guard will get there eventually, but hundreds would be dead by then.[/quote]

Carrying a gun doesn’t mean you will use it effectively. It’s estimated that only 15-20% of riflemen during WWII engaged the enemy with their rifle. This number greatly increased with training improvements. I don’t think Joe Civy is going to go in guns blazing, even if he wants to.

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Not a nuke…

Not a plane…

Small arms fire.

Our local police do not have the resources to respond to a large scale small arms attack on a community. Look what happens when ONE person brings a gun into a movie theatre… Or when ONE person brings a gun into a scool or LAX. 20+ get killed and have the entire police department scrambling. Now imagine if 10-20 organized terrorists with ak 47s hit 10 different high traffic areas in the same city at the same time. The Boston bombing killed 3, imagine the death toll in this scenario.

How would we prevent or contain this?
[/quote]

Dude, police agencies in North America already exercise too much authority and are militarized beyond what is reasonable. You want to give the jackbooted thugs more power? [/quote]

No. What would you propose would be the best way to deal with the situation? The police and National Guard will get there eventually, but hundreds would be dead by then.[/quote]

Carrying a gun doesn’t mean you will use it effectively. It’s estimated that only 15-20% of riflemen during WWII engaged the enemy with their rifle. This number greatly increased with training improvements. I don’t think Joe Civy is going to go in guns blazing, even if he wants to.

[/quote]

What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
It is not the intended/proper roll of local police/authorities to prevent such an event. No good could come from adding it to their list of duties. [/quote]

May not necessarily be there duty to gather intelligence and prevent, but it sure is there duty to respond. How do you think we should deal with the situation? [/quote]

Preventing such a scenario is only possible under a heavy handed autocracy. Joe citizen should not be conducting counter-terrorism operations in this scenario. Civilians’ role in such a crisis would be to bunker up and make themeselves hard targets.[/quote]

I would expect private citizens to conduct anti-terror ops, but I sure hope the government does and shares info with the local authorities. Bunkering up for joe scmoe works if your not at the scene. What if you do happen to be at the scene? gunman 10 ft away?

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
It is not the intended/proper roll of local police/authorities to prevent such an event. No good could come from adding it to their list of duties. [/quote]

May not necessarily be there duty to gather intelligence and prevent, but it sure is there duty to respond. How do you think we should deal with the situation? [/quote]

Preventing such a scenario is only possible under a heavy handed autocracy. Joe citizen should not be conducting counter-terrorism operations in this scenario. Civilians’ role in such a crisis would be to bunker up and make themeselves hard targets.[/quote]

I would expect private citizens to conduct anti-terror ops, but I sure hope the government does and shares info with the local authorities. Bunkering up for joe scmoe works if your not at the scene. What if you do happen to be at the scene? gunman 10 ft away?[/quote]

This happened recently in a Walmart in Nevada I believe. Two people who gunned down two cops eating lunch fled to a nearby Walmart. Inside, a CCW holder intervened and attempted to stop one of the shooters, but was shot and killed.

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem. [/quote]

No need to arm everyone. What is your solution?

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What would you propose Joey Civy to do? I wouldn’t suggest he rush from his home to the scene with a cape to save the day. But if he happened to be at the scene and under fire, It would be better to have a gun and be trained with it that not. However, there are too many easy targets in too many cities where it is unlikely anyone is armed.[/quote]

I agree that it would be better to be armed and trained than not, but I don’t think arming everyone is the solution to the problem. [/quote]

No need to arm everyone. What is your solution?[/quote]

Well, I don’t believe they are preventable in a free society. Patrol members of police forces should be equipped with rifles and hard body armor and receive training to neutralize the shooters ASAP once on scene.