| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| The Coming Swarm |
| 2009-02-15 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #22 Throwing keys - nah .. but running them over with your SUV works fine. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-02-15 21:57 |
| #21 Well, the training, anyway. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-02-15 21:28 |
| #20 OS, I wish I had 1/10th of your training and experience in real situations of this sort. ;-) |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-02-15 21:25 |
| #19 I carry. And I hope to never need it. But if I do, I will revert to training. That means choosing the when to draw the weapon and shoot - then put as many shots as I need into the bad guy, until he quits moving. That many, and no more. And try to be aware of whats beyond my target to try to avoid collateral damage. Its really that simple. You have to exercise SA, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet if things break the wrong way. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-02-15 21:05 |
| #18 I'm NRA and a handgun owner, but if you want a lot of armed people intervening on their own in a terror attack, they'd better DAMNED well be prudent and accurate shots with level heads, combat shooting training and a very good sense of ballistics and penetration for the weapon/ammo they are using. It's one thing to defend yourself at close range against an attack clearly aimed at you personally. Even in this case, many handgun owners run the risk of injuring or killing bystanders, especially if they don't train often and well for such a scenario or if they carry with full jacketed ammo. In most states such injuries or deaths would mean at the very least crippling civil lawsuit and quite likely criminal charges. The potential for all of that goes way up in the confusion of a terror attack. So does an armed citizen's chance of being taken for a terrorist and shot by law enforcement, including undercover cops. Not saying it can't be done or that being armed is useless. Many homegrown wannabe terrorists will be deterred if they think they stand a good chance of being shot before they can pull off their attack. But what happened at Mumbai doesn't fit the amateur wannabe scenario. It fits the scenario John Robb wrote about back in 2007 in an article called The Coming Urban Terror in which he noted that cities are very vulnerable to multiple simultaneous disruptions by groups who use cell phones etc. to keep authorities off balance with a stream of dispersed attacks. Not sure I'm entirely comfortable with your average handgun owner blazing away at real or suspected terrorists as attacks unfold in such a scenario. Might do good, but the potential for killing innocents, getting shot by authorities or mucking up the situation are significantly higher than zero. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-02-15 20:45 |
| #17 Nobody is disputing that doing something is better than doing nothing. What we're saying is, that in real life when we're not watching 24, it's not as clear cut when shit hits the fan. I'm not sure about you, but for myself, chucking my keys at a guy with a chinese AK seems like a bad idea compared to shooting him. Hence my first post. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-02-15 20:32 |
| #16 So to die doing nothing is better than to die doing something? The only reason a person would hold off is if they thought they had a chance to survive by doing nothing. If it becomes obvious that they are all going to die, there is absolutely NO benefit to remaining passive. But we train kids these days to be sheep and so they are led to the slaughter when things like this happen. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-02-15 20:15 |
| #15 The Mongols used swarm tactics. Just saying. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-02-15 19:31 |
| #14 Also consider the significant number of police trained in anti-terror in the U.S. since 911. Also many citizens go legally armed and are among the population at any given time. It is only in places like NY, California, D.C. and other places where gun grabbers have shelved the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens and made it difficult to have qualified, armed citizens at the ready to respond to swarm attacks. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-02-15 18:45 |
| #13 Crosspatch: easy to say, harder to do when someone has a gun and is shooting real, live bullets at everyone. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-02-15 17:43 |
| #12 "And lots of people throwing lots of things would be marginally effective right up until they killed everybody." If he is going to kill everybody ANYWAY what do people have to lose in fighting back? For example, if that shooters at Columbine a while back had faced a hail of books, backpacks and water bottles thrown at their heads, and then rushed by the entire population of the school, the shooter might have managed to kill a few but the death toll would have been a lot lower. If everyone is going to get killed *anyway* there is no excuse for *not* fighting back. Didn't we learn anything from United 93? |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-02-15 17:28 |
| #11 As a side note, there's now an ad over to the right for salmonella peanut butter. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-02-15 17:00 |
| #10 I'm sorry, how is it posible to read my position as 'doing nothing'? Well armed implies doing something said firearm. And lots of people throwing lots of things would be marginally effective right up until they killed everybody. Firearms good. Soda cans, not so good, but better than nothing. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-02-15 16:52 |
| #9 I imagine throwing a phone at an armed terrorist is good way to get oneself killed. Lots of people throwing lots of hard objects is very disconcerting when one is trying to shoot at them, Mike N... and utterly ruins one's self-image as the bad-ass bad guy controlling the situation. I'd happily sacrifice my cell phone in such a situation, especially as the data is backed up, and the device is insured. And, as Glailet Ghibelline8454 notes, doing nothing is a sure way to get oneself harmed, as all those injured and dead Indians discovered recently. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-02-15 16:44 |
| #8 What people should understand is that "swarm" tactics can work equally well against terrorists, too. Because of modern communications technology that is available, anti-terrorist assets can be dispersed across an entire city. These assets would wear civilian clothing and blend in with the population. In case of an incident, those people closest to the scene could begin to converge on the trouble spot from all directions. A potential attacker would be virtually surrounded before they even get started. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-02-15 16:01 |
| #7 Mike - doing squat works even better... |
| Posted by: Glailet Ghibelline8454 2009-02-15 15:48 |
| #6 I imagine throwing a phone at an armed terrorist is good way to get oneself killed. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-02-15 15:44 |
| #5 Swarm tactics would be far less effective against a populace willing to throw hard objects at the terrorists. Guns are simply a more portable and more powerful version of a handful of pebbles or paving stones. I imagine cell phones would work, too, when wielded by girls who play fast-pitch softball. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-02-15 15:41 |
| #4 I get raw peanuts from my brothe in South Alabama and make my own peanutbutter. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2009-02-15 15:10 |
| #3 Nope. Skippy aint PCA sourced. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-02-15 14:01 |
| #2 PCA? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-02-15 13:00 |
| #1 Torrorist Swarm tactics would be far less effective amongst a well armed populace. I'm stocking up for the coming troubles. I've got 20 jars of Skippy peanut butter, but Ima thinnin I should have gotten ammo instead. Yes. I really do have 20 jars of peanut butter. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-02-15 12:03 |