War on Terror

A common debate

Robb Allen — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:02:01 GMT

Mad Rocket Scientist emailed me last night with a link to this story regarding the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Speaking of the comments, MRS says

A common debate, played out in a predictable fashion

The article itself was primarily about the actual rarity of terrorist attacks (24x7 news coverage amplifies the effect, yet terrorist attacks are still rare) and the security measures that fail to prevent them. However, the comments took on a life of their own.

Let me summarize

JohnMcLane- This happened because India is a gun free zone. Had civilians been allowed to carry guns, someone with an HK USP could have laid down suppressive fire while someone else with a Glock 26 could have picked off the terrorists with head shots from 200 yards away using the Bauer technique.

PHelmke - If only one civilian was armed, he would end up panicking and shooting every person he saw with each shot killing at least a dozen people. Civilians cannot be trusted with firearms since they'll only increase the body count which helps the terrorists.

Repeat those two comments several hundred times. There, I just saved you the trouble of reading through them all.

Now, onto my point. An armed populace isn't going to deter terrorist attacks. Period. What an armed populace may do is change the method of attack. I doubt that any terrorist attack on the U.S. is going to involve a few guys armed with nothing more than rifles or handguns and a couple of grenades. 9/11 used box cutters.

Suicide attacks aren't thwarted by the thought of dying, so your CCW isn't going to change their minds. Those terrorists with a plan aren't going to simply pick up a surplus rifle at a gun show and walk into the eatery at the local mall and start shooting. Hollywood notwithstanding, those with a plan are also going to be trained in tactics and have a detailed plan of attack. Here's the kicker - they're not going to plan on doing it without anyone shooting back at them at all and they'll be prepared for it. It's easier when you know your prey is disarmed, but they assume some risk anyway so one or two people with a snub nosed .38 special aren't going to deter them all that much.

This isn't to say having a concealed weapon is useless, but statistically it isn't going to help against a well armed, rare encounter with homosapien terroristia. Even if you take one out, I guarantee you it isn't going to stop the others from continuing their attack. What your weapon can assist with is getting your own ass out of the situation, and for that I wholeheartedly agree you should have one on you at all times.

Now, the other side of the arguments come from people who assume that those carrying a pistol are doing so because either they are itching to kill someone and would use panic as an excuse to execute everyone in plain sight or are just incompetent and would kill everyone in plain sight. Either way, they assume civilians with firearms = mass causalities, something that has never happened. Heck, in fact just this week two gang bangers went at it in a Toys 'R Us and through the entire barrage of bullets manages to only kill themselves.

People like that are deluded by what they see in movies (ironic that they claim gunnies are fooled by Hollywood!). A hail of bullets actually has less of a chance of killing someone than an aimed shot. They don't call it spray and pray because it's effective. You're not praying thanks, you're asking for just one of your bullets to meet a vital organ. This isn't to say stray bullets don't kill or harm innocents, but hitting a target with lethal accuracy isn't as easy as it looks on The Transporter.

When I first started really paying attention to guns and gun rights, it was natural to assume that an armed populace would help reduce crime as criminals would think twice about attacking someone who could fight back. I then came to realize that if criminals were actually intelligent, they wouldn't be criminals and intelligence is required to make the logical connection that your victim might be armed.

I now argue that concealed weapons are neutral when it comes to crime rates. They neither go up nor down with an increase of people carrying them. What does increase are the number of victims who are able to walk away from a crime both alive and with their belongings intact. This doesn't change when the crime is an attack of terrorism. You increase your own personal chances of getting away, but that's about it.

Yippee ki-yay and all...

250 insurgents vs 30 Marines

Robb Allen — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:55:28 GMT

Next time, bring a lot more insurgents

FARAH PROVINCE, Afghanistan — In the city of Shewan, approximately 250 insurgents ambushed 30 Marines and paid a heavy price for it.

...

“I didn’t realize how many bad guys there were until we had broken through the enemies’ lines and forced them to retreat. It was roughly 250 insurgents against 30 of us,” the corporal said. “It was a good day for the Marine Corps. We killed a lot of bad guys, and none of our guys were seriously injured.”

OOHRAH!

Ambushed. Already beat from a long day. Still a force to be reckoned with. The few, the proud, MY MARINES!

Hat Tip Some Big Shot Moron

Just wow...

Robb Allen — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:14:27 GMT

Michael Yon. If only our media were this good, we'd have a truly informed populace.

Nick gets it

Robb Allen — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:15:00 GMT

And gets it good.

I read Anderson and disagree with 80% of his cartoons. But when he’s right, he’s right.

Creativity

Robb Allen — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:03:00 GMT

About that faked Reuters photo

Robb Allen — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:42:00 GMT

In case you’ve been like me and pretty much unplugged over the weekend, Reuters has been caught publishing photographs that have been tampered with.

The scariest part is that this particular photo was simply a shitty Photoshop job. As a wedding photographer, I use Photoshop to open people's eyes, take off that last minute zit, and even move people closer to each other. When I am done, there isn't the slightest hint that anything ever changed.

For example, a friend of my wife's recently asked me to remove a camera bag from an otherwise nice photo. It was easy because it was on grass, and grass has a nice, randomness to it that makes it simple to clone. However, because I see these things, I ensured that I mixed up the cloning with some transformations, blurring, and whatnot so that even a trained eye wouldn't be able to see what had changed.

So, while this one is rather easy to spot, how many times have we been fooled into thinking something was bloodier than it really was? Or more flooded? Or colder?

The irony of technology is that its ability to assist mankind is matched in its ability to destroy us. Biotech gives us bioterror. Enhanced computers and network give us the ability to spread the truth almost as fast as lies.

And better imaging software gives me a great set of tits…

Zarqawi's possible replacement, Sheikh Mansur, is NOT a terrorist

Robb Allen — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:58:00 GMT

Well, not anymore at least.

I wonder what these pricks’ life insurance premiums are like?

The anklebone is connected to the brain pan

Robb Allen — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:45:00 GMT

Iowahawk isn’t taking the Z-man’s demise lying down.

Best phrase –

Personally I think I'm lookin' straight GQ, seeing as I just got a 500-pound laser guided curb stomp. Shit cuz, y'all should see Kahlid, a.k.a. "Ceiling Spackle."

At lest the reports from hell will be interesting.

I still don't get it

Robb Allen — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:00 GMT

Mohammed was a prophet, kinda like Malachi or Zephaniah is in Biblical terms. Therefore, comparing insults to Mohammed to insults to Jesus isn't quite accurate.

So maybe soaking a crucifix in urine is ok, but talk smack about Habbakuk and you'd better prepare for Pat Roberts to offer $1M for your head?

Like Superman, only running on AA batteries

Robb Allen — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:38:00 GMT

New Device Will Sense Through Concrete Walls

WASHINGTON - Troops conducting urban operations soon will have the capabilities of superheroes, being able to sense through 12 inches of concrete to determine if someone is inside a building.

The new "Radar Scope" will give warfighters searching a building the ability to tell within seconds if someone is in the next room, Edward Baranoski from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Special Projects Office, told the American Forces Press Service.

By simply holding the portable, handheld device up to a wall, users will be able to detect movements as small as breathing, he said. [emph. mine]

Waaaaaaay cool. Technology is really changing the way we fight wars.

Just don’t let Bush get a hold of some of these. They might need to put a few against your house. You know, for national security ;-)