Fox article; Lott

imported post

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292953,00.html

...Israel has indeed had remarkable success in stopping terrorist gun attacks. Israelis realized that the police and military simply can't be there all the time to protect people when terrorists attack. There are simply too many vulnerable targets. And even when the police or military are nearby, terrorists wait until the police and military leave the area before attacking. If attacks still go forward, those who are openly carrying a gun for protection become the first targets that the terrorists try to take out.

Click to expand...

I don't think this sort of blanket statement can be supported.

If my goal is to "clear the path" for a bomber and I spy 18 OC in the cafe, I'm calling the abort signal.Depending on my backup, it may be a lower number. Of course, I'm not a terrorist, or MMM...

The article does raise a couple of good points.

Mir Aimal Kasi & Muhammed/Malvoall used low tech means to accomplish their goals and to great effect.

Thoughts?

imported post

The difference is between strategy and tactics. If your strategy is to ignore one aspect in order to speed achievement of the objective then the obvious tactic is obviated - at some risk.

But to Lott/Levitt's points; "Forewarned is fore-armed." If we honestly evaluate the threat universe then we may find a 'universal' defense. That honesty has been abandoned infavor of more elite government agents sucking at the tax-teat.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$ 229 times

imported post

The goal of the terrorist is to kill people and most times do not care if they die in the process. I can believe terroist would shoot first at armed citizens.

However, the American criminal has different intentions then a terrorist, I think they move one to an easier target.

imported post

Actually there's nothing elite about them. At this point in the nation's life cycle, they're ubiquitous.