My 2 Cents:

Given a scenario where you are about to face an armed terrorist (as many people in those hotels would have), who is clearly going to kill you just because of your kaffir status, would you rather:

a) be unarmed
OR
b) carrying a firearm and be willing to use deadly force to defend your life, and possibly the lives of others with you?

I know what I’d choose, and so did that photographer who has been endlessly quoted. Do you?

huh? so because the attackers were (would have been) deterred by some armed citizens in one place they would have killed just as many elsewhere?

even if true (which is certainly not provable) the point you admitted was that the FEAR of armed response can can change an attackers plans. ergo, you don’t see criminals (or terrorists) attacking heavily armed positions. not in Iraq, not in Afganistan, not in London, not in the US. In India they didn’t attack Indian army bases did they?

did 19 Saudi killers suicide into a police station (or gun shop) on 9/11? no, they went where the victims are defensless. they may be homicidal maniacs but they’re not stupid.

quantify what statement? eithe statement that you seem to refer to appears self-evident to me.

Who’s refuting the armed populace argument? I’m refuting the argument that you can apply a criminal deterrence model to a non criminal attack.

“Armed citizens are a DETERRENT, and WILL cause attackers to modify their behavior.
The people in one of the “one or two less targets” would have survived because they weren’t attacked.”

Which will be offset by the people killed in the remaining attacks. Upon further reflection, the attackers would probably attack the same number of targets, just using bombs instead. Modifying behavior does not equal modifying it in a way that works out well for the populace.

“Clearly, being armed is not a guarantee of survival, or of not being attacked. However, being un-armed SEVERELY diminishes your options to defend yourself, even if it be from an attack by terrorists.”

Okay, I’ll bite. Quantify that statement.

The more people that are armed, the FEWER targets that can be safely attacked.

A perfectly fair point, although I’m not entirely sure that’s what Radley meant. Also, we did end up with Indian commandos killing the attackers, although rousting them took precious time and energy.

Asking purely hypothetically, is their a cultural aversion in India to everyone being armed to the teeth? Religious? I don’t know. It just seems like this situation is slightly more complicated than suggesting that if everyone had guns, this never would have happened.

Do you not consider it a failure for police to hide while people are dying?

“Let’s say the average Indian was armed to the teeth, the attackers still could easily have modified their tactics to suit this by attacking one or two less targets, and splitting those cell members among the remaining targets, giving them increased firepower at the remaining targets.”

Armed citizens are a DETERRENT, and WILL cause attackers to modify their behavior.

The people in one of the “one or two less targets” would have survived because they weren’t attacked.

The more people that are armed, the FEWER targets that can be safely attacked.

Clearly, being armed is not a guarantee of survival, or of not being attacked. However, being un-armed SEVERELY diminishes your options to defend yourself, even if it be from an attack by terrorists.

Perhaps, and you can make that argument, but don’t pretend that you can draw conclusions about what is better and safer from this isolated incident. It is an uninformed argument. It is also quite possible that if private citizens were carrying the total murder rate in india might be much higher (even equivalent to the US!)

Your point about N. VA vs. DC is illustrative, it shows that socio-economic status is so important to the violent crime rate. Which is why it is so shocking that a country known for vast poverty like india has such a low murder rate compared to the US, “despite” the extensive gun control.

I guess we’ll just have to take your word for it.

*eyeroll*.

You read the sentence again, only focus on the bolded part:

India’s government not only failed to protect its citizens from terrorism, it wouldn’t allow them to protect themselves.

I want to know how it was supposed to. Radley was clearly implying that India failed…I want to know what its government could have done differently.

This is the big lie, which repeated often enough, appears to become true.

The safest society of all is one in which EVERY person carries a gun, concealed or not.

Yes, perhaps. Strict gun control may be part of the problem in India (and the U.S.), but employers can also be to blame. I am a healthcare security officer (non-sworn) at a large midewestern hospital. Our officers could take a firearms training course (40 hours) and would be permitted to carry while on duty. Due to the experiences I have had over the last several years, I think this would be advantageous, and would allow us to protect the campus community and ourselves during “nightmare scenarios.” The hospital’s administrators see it differently (through the prism of “public relations”) and are vehemently opposed to guns on the campus. Easy for them to say, as they don’t face the verbal and sometimes physical abuse that we do on a regular basis. Thus, management is caught up in a popular delusion: “but if you guys carry, people will feel like the hospital is unsafe.” Well, they’ll feel even less safe if someone comes into ER with a knife or gun and the closest security officer dives into an office and locks the door. Some folks just don’t see the big picture!

Something nobody ever seems to consider (except, oddly, occasional filmmakers) is: what use are metal detectors against people willing to draw weapons and open fire?

The death of an individual, or several individuals, is NOTHING to the state — the state’s first obligation is to its own self-preservation. This is a precondition for statehood.

An armed populace is a threat of the first order to the state. The genius behind the American state is the mass delusion of popular sovereignty, so that the armed populace actually believes that it is the state, and thus self-neutralizes.

Things should get interesting if Americans en masse start to wake up from their delusion.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82371

Radley insinuated that India’s government failed to prevent this attack. I’d like to know how it was supposed to.

Read it again, Sam, this time for comprehension; it’s only one sentence, but you have to read the whole sentence. Pay attention to the part in bold:

India’s government not only failed to protect its citizens from terrorism, it wouldn’t allow them to protect themselves.