FoxPolitics.net - Appleton, WI News - What's really going on in the Fox Cities

FoxPolitics.net Blogs

FoxPolitics News

Local/State Govt Links

Salaries

• Appleton School District, 2007-08
• City of Appleton
• Town of Grand Chute
• City of Menasha
• City of Neenah

Candidates

City of Appleton

• Elected Officials
• Salary Watch
• Directory
• Mtg. Agendas/Minutes

Advisory Board

Blogroll

Selected News Sources:
Business Jrnl of Milw
Christian Science Monitor
Daily Caller
Drudge Report
La Crosse Tribune
Milw Journal Sentinel
National Journal
New York Times
Public Policy Forum
Real Clear Politics
Stateline
The Hill
TPM
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times
WI State Journal
Selected Blogs - from the Right:
American Mind
Blaska's Blog
Boots & Sabers
Charlie Sykes
Dad29
Freedom Eden
Heritage Foundation
Jerry Bader Blog
Life Voice
Marketplace of Ideas
Marquette Warrior
Natl Review Online
No Runny Eggs
Patrick McIlheran
Real Debate Wisconson
RedState
Rhymes with Clown
Shark and Shepherd
The Lote Tree
Vox Populi
Wall Street Jrnl, Opinions
WI State Jrnl, Opinion
Wigderson Library & Pub
Wisconsin Family Voice
WPRI
Selected Blogs - from the Left:
Big Money Blog
Blogging Blue
Brenda Konkel
Caffeinated Politics
Capital Times
FightingBob
Folkbum's rambles
Griper Blade
Huffington Post
Lost Albatross
MAL Contends
Mid coast views
Moneyed Politicians
One Wisconsin Now
Open Left
Playground Politics
Political Environment
Rock Netroots
Talk to Tony
Uppity Wisconsin
Waxing America

Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie
My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more)

Search Archives

Blogs

Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)

Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)

Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)

FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)

Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)

Education done right (1/27/2011)

To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)

(more)

12/10/2008
Burri: What if a Mumbai happened here?

It seems a little odd to ask that question. Things like that do happen here – shootings, even in schools, are far too common. And we've had our terrorist attacks, too: 9/11; the first World Trade Center bombing; Oklahoma City.

Still, Mumbai was different. It wasn't one or two gunmen, acting out their own despairing blaze of glory. It wasn't a truck packed with explosives, or a hijacked airliner flown into a building.

These were trained, armed, coordinated groups of killers who attacked and took over several locations with the express purpose of looking people in the eye when they pulled the trigger. This was large-scale terrorism, but with a personal touch.

I guess we should be asking – not what if it happened here, but why hasn't it happened here? Why haven't we had suicide bombers in Houston? Car bombs in San Diego? Roadside ambushes, homemade mortars?

It's not that hard, really. Not that hard to make homemade explosives. Easy as pie to walk into a crowded mall and set them off. It happens in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Israel. It used to happen in Britain and Spain.

Why not here? We are, after all, the Great Satan. If the Islamofascists were really serious, they'd bring their game over here.

If they can, that is. Hey, I think I've answered my question.

So back to the original question: what if it did happen here? Just one time: one Mumbai. One indication that the shootings will no longer be conducted by desperate, angry, hopeless people: instead, they'll be organized, coordinated, and purposeful.

If gun sales boomed following Barack Obama's election, they'd explode after that. Applications for concealed carry permits would skyrocket, and in that tiny minority of states which don't allow concealed weapons even for responsible, law abiding citizens, open carry would become more common.

I'd sure figure out how to keep a weapon more handy.

Now: That wouldn't solve everything. Crime would still occur. Shootings. Terrorist activity. The odds that someone – or, preferably, someones – armed is nearby, able to act, willing to act, will still be small.

And even then, there's a big difference sometimes between knowing what to do and being able to do it.

Still, as one rational Englishman noted this week:

The guns used in last week’s Bombay massacre were all “prohibited weapons” under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership)… …in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims.

You start shooting, we shoot back. That's a deterrent.

As usual, in Mumbai, gun laws only affected the people willing to obey the law. Those willing to disobey it, therefore, had the power. Ease gun restrictions, and that will change. Wait until we have a Mumbai on this side of the Atlantic, and…well, more people will become willing to disobey.

Those who fear guns say we'll have more shootouts and more accidents, should current restrictions be lifted. It's true: You can't have a firearm-related accident without a firearm.

That must have been comforting to Mumbai's victims: knowing that they were so unlikely to die from a firearm-related accident. Their families, surely, are comforted to know that they have such protection from guns.

Lance Burri is a contributor to the Badger Blog Alliance and occasionally blogs at his own site as well.

COMMENTS

This is an interesting question. If a Mumbai-type attack happened in the United States, it assumes that the CIA, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security fell on their feet. It's been known to happen.

If that happened, the first line of defense would be local government, not a bunch of gun-happy individuals, or -- worse yet -- grenade-happy individuals.

Now, I'm sure Lance is trained in the use of the kind of fire power that would be necessary to deal with a Mumbai-type attack.

AK-47s, grenade launchers and huge amounts of tear gas, at a minimum. A helicopter gun ship or two. Gadgets that we don't even know about.

My friends who are veterans of the war in Iraq know about such things. I don't know too many other folks who do.

Certainly a bunch of civilians with pop guns would succeed in doing little besides getting themselves killed.

One question to ask is whether the money the Department of Homeland Security has been throwing around has gone to the type of weaponry -- and the training -- at the local level needed to deal with a Mumbai-type attack.

(When Tom Ridge called me up this fall, he didn't mention Mumbai at all, so it must have been under his radar too.)

I don't know how the feds have spent their billions intended to make us safe. In one case, a local official I knew walked into his police department and saw staff huddled around a brand-new color printer.

"Where did that come from," he asked.

"The Department of Homeland Security," he was told. An unsolicited gift on behalf of national security. The only rationale that I could figure out was that the printer would allow security alerts to be printed out in color.

If a Mumbai-style attack happened in the United States, the first responders would be from local government, just as they were in the attack on the World Trade Center.

The second responders would probably be from the military, not a bunch of guys with deer rifles.

A little intelligence would help, but I know that's a rare commodity in the war on terror.

Rich Eggleston (Wed Dec 10 10:12:43 2008)

Um, Oklahoma City? Wasn't the Federal Building blown up by a right-wing wack-job that hated all things government, but not including his military pay?

And didn't our "President" Bush specifically NOT put into the new Iraqi constitution some vague wording about the "right" to bear arms?

Jay M. (Fri Dec 12 17:07:57 2008)

For a second there, I thought you were going to confess that you've come to realize that the "war on terror" was propaganda designed to make you afraid.

I don't think a slightly-more-armed populace would make much difference to anyone wishing to carry out terror. They will adjust their strategy and tactics. If guns could be carried in public, concealed or not, what percentage of our population would choose to do so? More or less than the number of people who can be bothered to vote?

If terrorists are already willing to risk their lives and even volunteer as suicide bombers, why would the chance of a few more guns make much difference? If you don't feel like dying, switch to tactics like bombs. Switch to a location where there's fewer guns. I bet fewer people would take their guns to the beach than to to an urban dance club. Or use guns with a longer range than a pocket pistol.

The terrorists have the advantage of preplanning and group communication. The random crowd doesn't. Let's say one terrorist attracts the attention of the minority of the crowd who's carrying a weapon. Half of them pull and aim. Boom-boom-boom, he's dead and the shooters are probably shocked. The other terrorists reveal themselves and quickly pop many or all of the very surprised casual gun-toters. Presto. Is this hypothetical scenario any less fanciful to believe?

John Foust (Mon Dec 15 10:30:29 2008)

Post a Reply

Print this Article

Email Article to a Friend