It looks like there were only ten gunmen involved in the Indian terrorist attacks, which begs the question: could an armed citizenry have put the series of attacks to a much quicker end?

(Anyone know about the right to bear arms in India? Doesn't seem like concealed-carry is very widespread there.)

You can't always count on the police to protect you. Writes a photographer on the scene:

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back." ...

The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Could Armed Citizens Have Reduced the Carnage in India?.

TrackBack URL for this entry:



Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Site Info