When in need can we shoot ???

[gverma]

Hi
I ha been reading some articles and news columns on the net around allowing people arms as many tragedies such as the Mumbai attack can be avoided.

I want to pose these questions...

1. In Mumbai attack the attackers were using fully automatic guns can we as civilians fight them with our regular guns and pistols... We as people need access to better guns, Civil defence communities and police deputising people

2. Do we have training to combat a skilled individual who has gone through trainings.... We need mandatory military service for our young people just the way in Germany

3. I remember some time back watching some show on Discovery which showed that even skilled soldiers in WW2 did not shoot at their enemy because it is mammals nature not to kill of your own kind... Are we psychologically prepared to shoot another human being...

Let me know what you think...

[nagarifle]

Hi
I ha been reading some articles and news columns on the net around allowing people arms as many tragedies such as the Mumbai attack can be avoided.

I want to pose these questions...

1. In Mumbai attack the attackers were using fully automatic guns can we as civilians fight them with our regular guns and pistols... We as people need access to better guns, Civil defence communities and police deputising people

yes, automatic only means that they have high rate of fire, a 303 rifle, and a good man using it can take out any automatic weapons, only the rate of fire is different.

2. Do we have training to combat a skilled individual who has gone through trainings.... We need mandatory military service for our young people just the way in Germany

it is a natural instinct in humans to stay undercover when bullets are firing. if you are looking at Mumbai and thinking at lots of highly trained people taking action, no chance, what is needed that more people should have training to use arms, without joining the army.

3. I remember some time back watching some show on Discovery which showed that even skilled soldiers in WW2 did not shoot at their enemy because it is mammals nature not to kill of your own kind... Are we psychologically prepared to shoot another human being...

the question when relating to Mumbai, that the bed boys did not care who they killed, their training was to kill regardless, not like the soldiers in WW11 who have the option not to do something which goes against their morals.

if the populous are encouraged to go to range and train with firearms, and given and made arms licences fair, that would mean that more populous will be armed and ready to defend themselves.

[goodboy_mentor]

I fully agree with nagarifle and would like to add the following: Automatic guns are overrated by media who barely have any knowledge of firearms or their use. The usual purpose of media is to create sensation to grab attention. What matters is proper training and regular practice. It is accurate fire from proper defensive position and not "spray and pray" in panic using automatic guns that produces results. Please refer http://www.leeenfieldrifleassociation.o ... ge=history

The Short Magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) affectionately known as the "SMELLIE" Starting life as the No 1 Mk 1 and finishing as the No 1 Mk VI, it used all over the world in two World Wars. Most probably the finest bolt action battle rifle ever produced, it was easily capable of 15 rounds a minute of accurate fire in the hands of a trained soldier. However, a Small Arms School Corps QMSI managed a rate of 37 rds a minute in the 1930's.
..............Once again the Germans attacked in tightly bunched waves and again they were met with rifle fire so intense that they thought the British were equipped with machine guns.
An account from Lt R A Macleod 80th Bty XV Bde RFA stated:
"Our Infantry were splendid they had only scratchings in the ground made with their entrenching tools, which didn't give much cover, but they stuck it out and returned a good rate of fire. The German Infantry fired from the hip as they advanced but their fire was very inaccurate."

[gverma]

My points are not around how good trainings the terrorists will get it is how prepared we has civilians should be.

2. Military training for individuals if forced will allow them to learn... how many of us would do that hardship and make ourselvs physically and mentaly capable to be able to take action. Even if we have individual trainings we need to learn to work as a group

3. It is we who need to teach ourselvs that the individuals who are shooting and killing people have left the domain of human existance and have become something different perhaps animals... of the lowest kind... and it is ok to shoot them even if they are mascarading as humans...


All in all in principle I agree with what has been said...we as a country need to be better prepared...in logistics( by having arms) in body and mind ( having trainings) and have an organization which wont depend on anything but the support of its people...

[goodboy_mentor]

In any country there are two kinds of militia:
1) Militia owned and maintained by the state(Armed Forces)
2) Militia not owned and maintained by the state(citizens themselves)
All licensed arms holder in this country are nothing but a well regulated militia comprising the people of this country. Whenever anyone of them uses his/her firearms for his/her defense or for the defense of others around, is doing nothing but enforcing the law. Hence helps enforcing the law and order to maintain peace and security of state. We should not expect the state to force and also take the monetary burden for maintaining the militia of citizens. The state is already burdened enough, with maintaining its own militia(Armed Forces). No one is preventing arms holders of this country to come forward and practice. If they face problems, they should be informing their government and M.P.s/M.L.A.s(law makers)