Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera...

[jonesthecurl]

the goat behind me is much tastier, DM. Can I cross?

[KoolBak]

Gabon....never seen that; classic! Thanks! lol

[StiffMittens]

the goat behind me is much tastier, DM. Can I cross?

[Frigidus]

the goat behind me is much tastier, DM. Can I cross?

Jonesy, they might realize what you mean, shhhhhhhhhh.

Edit: DM does have a good point by the way. Just because you have a different motive, you're still taking another man's life with a weapon. What, exactly, differentiates you from this person other than what you're seeking to kill him for? When a man goes to trial, you are not trying his motivations for committing a crime, you are trying him for committing it at all. If reasoning behind your actions ever enters into the equation it opens up several cans of worms as to what is and isn't acceptable in a civilized society.

[pimpdave]

Just to throw out a serious comment regarding this awful tragedy. Some friends of mine have still have family in Mumbai, and it was a bit of a harrowing event over an otherwise idyllic holiday weekend to gather with them and wait while they confirmed their family members were all accounted for.

So, I think the Indian police force needs an overhaul and new training.

I know that the government there is rather corrupt, but something must be done. There is a procedure for urban cops in America in the event of a terrorist attack. If these guys had been trained to handle the situation, they would have handled it. They couldn't all have been cowards. There's only two kinds of combatants: trained and untrained.

The whole thing is so sad, and I hope no one on these boards were directly affected by the vicious, despicable attacks.

[Neoteny]

I also question your statement that a lone pistol wielder would stop me, particularly if both myself and my buddy were riding with Kalishnikov's. I'd probably stop walking around firing from the hip like an idiot, but it likely wouldn't discourage me (assuming I were crazy, and wanted to kill as many people as possible of course). I'd probably coordinate some sort of suppressive fire/flanking maneuver that would give us the advantage.

Take that same scenario, and now imagine that you two are standing close to each other and don't expect to be shot at. Anyone who can stomach to hold a gun steady could easily empty a clip on both of you before you were able to return fire.

Well, that scenario doesn't really make much sense, now does it? If I'm on a rampage shooting at people with assault rifles, I'm going to allow for the fairly significant chance that someone is going to shoot back with something. And if I'm in Texas, I'm likely going to be facing mortar fire and tactical nukes. I'm fairly sure these guys were expecting to be shot at sometime during their excursion, and would have been prepared for it.

[jonesthecurl]

There is also a difference between the behaviour of a normal member of the public - you or me, armed or not - and journalists.
Journalists often have a difficult time being merely observers, but it is, or should be, what they do: they will often have access to places or people or events that would demand action (or at least the screaming of abuse) from the general public. But even nut-jobs have to be able to assume that a reporter, a journalist, is there merely to observe.

[Frigidus]

There is also a difference between the behaviour of a normal member of the public - you or me, armed or not - and journalists.
Journalists often have a difficult time being merely observers, but it is, or should be, what they do: they will often have access to places or people or events that would demand action (or at least the screaming of abuse) from the general public. But even nut-jobs have to be able to assume that a reporter, a journalist, is there merely to observe.

A good point. If a journalist were to stop a man from, say, murdering someone, they would be breaking their journalistic integrity. They report the news, not make the news. Besides, if journalists suddenly did whatever they wanted their lives would always be at risk.

[jonesthecurl]

I have seen or read interviews with hardened criminals, terrorists, IRA men, leaders of oppressive regimes, gang members, etc.

If the journalist breaks their role as observer in such cases the next journalist may not have that access.

Unless, of course, they take off their spectacles, brush their hair into a kiss-curl, and break out the red cape. Then nobody will recognise them.

[Snorri1234]

I also question your statement that a lone pistol wielder would stop me, particularly if both myself and my buddy were riding with Kalishnikov's. I'd probably stop walking around firing from the hip like an idiot, but it likely wouldn't discourage me (assuming I were crazy, and wanted to kill as many people as possible of course). I'd probably coordinate some sort of suppressive fire/flanking maneuver that would give us the advantage.

Take that same scenario, and now imagine that you two are standing close to each other and don't expect to be shot at. Anyone who can stomach to hold a gun steady could easily empty a clip on both of you before you were able to return fire.

Well, that scenario doesn't really make much sense, now does it? If I'm on a rampage shooting at people with assault rifles, I'm going to allow for the fairly significant chance that someone is going to shoot back with something. And if I'm in Texas, I'm likely going to be facing mortar fire and tactical nukes. I'm fairly sure these guys were expecting to be shot at sometime during their excursion, and would have been prepared for it.

No no. These guys were obviously complete morons who hadn't prepared for this in the slightest. All terrorists are by nature utter idiots. They cannot think of even the most logical possible outcomes of their actions. No terrorist has ever been smart. The fact that they killed over a hundred people while being with so few is obviously just luck.

[Juan_Bottom]

Well, that scenario doesn't really make much sense, now does it? If I'm on a rampage shooting at people with assault rifles, I'm going to allow for the fairly significant chance that someone is going to shoot back with something. And if I'm in Texas, I'm likely going to be facing mortar fire and tactical nukes. I'm fairly sure these guys were expecting to be shot at sometime during their excursion, and would have been prepared for it.

It does say that they were just standing there, shooting from the hip. Not running from covering position to covering position.

It took three days for the police to shoot ten people even though they out numbered the terrorists and had access to better weapons. In that same time the terrorists were able to kill hundreds.

This wouldn't fly in America.

Dancing Mustard wrote:
Even if that guy had a gun, it would have been wrong for him to fire at the terrorists. For anybody who isn't a law enforcement official to kill or maim another human being without a prior fair-trial to determine guilt is a gross afront to justice and liberty. If he'd shot at the terrorists, then he ought to be liable for the same punishment as them (death or life-imprisonment).
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read on any forum. Seriously..

Calm down Gabon. Nobody is judging you for your upbringing, please try to remain civil and calm.

I agree with Gabon, actually. What's next, you're going to turn Christian on me? I would be allowed to kill if a court said it was ok, or if I had a badge, BUT NOT simply to save my life, the lives of my family, or community? You're a bureucrat?

I am advocating death or life-imprisonment for anybody who takes the life of another human being without giving that person the benefit of a fair trial. What right has any man to kill another if he has not been proven to be guilty of a heinous crime?

When someone is executing random people in front of you, he's guilty. Over here we call shooting back a 'justifiable homicide' at worst. You're telling me that even if you had the power to stop it, you're stand by while waiting for the paperwork?

To shoot anybody is to murder. The situation is entirely irrelevant, murder remains and will always remain murder. It will always remain a crime.

Self-Defence is not murder, it's suicide. If someone attacks me or my family, with the intent to kill or hurt us, and I kill him first, then he just committed suicide.

Who are we to appoint ourselves judges, juries and executioners and to mette out violence to those who we feel are committing wrongdoing?

Who are you to appoint judges, juries, and executioners at all?

But to hand out the right to maim and murder to every man in the street, entirely bypassing all forms of law and undermining the law enforcement authorities is something which no civilised nation can possibly allow.

Yup, justifiable homicide at worst.

DM does have a good point by the way.

No he doesn't.

Just because you have a different motive, you're still taking another man's life with a weapon.

We're not talking about a war started by politicians, we're talking about defense.

If reasoning behind your actions ever enters into the equation it opens up several cans of worms as to what is and isn't acceptable in a civilized society.

I don't know what you just said. Shooting back at someone who is executing other people is actually encouraged in America. That's actually why police carry guns.

There is a procedure for urban cops in America in the event of a terrorist attack. If these guys had been trained to handle the situation, they would have handled it. They couldn't all have been cowards. There's only two kinds of combatants: trained and untrained.

At the L.A. bank robbery the first thing the cops did was close off a perimeter and get the civilians to a safe distance. Once that first shot was ired, the cops all engulfed the shooters in a halo of bullets. The police couldn't crck the robber's body armor, so they wen't to a local gun shop and borrowed some M16s with hollow points. Our cops can handle this stuff.
It sounds to me like their police just crapped themselves until someone took control of them.

[Frigidus]

To shoot anybody is to murder. The situation is entirely irrelevant, murder remains and will always remain murder. It will always remain a crime.

Self-Defence is not murder, it's suicide. If someone attacks me or my family, with the intent to kill or hurt us, and I kill him first, then he just committed suicide.

This is worded a little strangely, but I get your point. However, you're basically saying that there are certain circumstances under which you would kill someone. How, then, can one know when someone is meeting these circumstances? Perhaps this guy is killing you to save thousands of lives. You can never be sure, and having an itchy trigger finger is only going to make things worse. The best action in this terrorist scenario (or any scenario involving rogue gunmen for that matter) would be to engage in meaningful discourse.

[Snorri1234]

Well, that scenario doesn't really make much sense, now does it? If I'm on a rampage shooting at people with assault rifles, I'm going to allow for the fairly significant chance that someone is going to shoot back with something. And if I'm in Texas, I'm likely going to be facing mortar fire and tactical nukes. I'm fairly sure these guys were expecting to be shot at sometime during their excursion, and would have been prepared for it.

It does say that they were just standing there, shooting from the hip. Not running from covering position to covering position.

It took three days for the police to shoot ten people even though they out numbered the terrorists and had access to better weapons. In that same time the terrorists were able to kill hundreds.

This wouldn't fly in America.

Your reply is totally invalidated by your next quote of Gabon.


I mean, seriously, you are saying that these terrorists were complete buffoons and yet claim that they were so smart that they avoided being killed by the cops for quite some time?

[Juan_Bottom]

I mean, seriously, you are saying that these terrorists were complete buffoons and yet claim that they were so smart that they avoided being killed by the cops for quite some time?

I don't even see how you got that. I'm saying the terrorists were idiots, but the cops were worse. Scared out of their minds so it took them too long to regroup.

However, you're basically saying that there are certain circumstances under which you would kill someone.

Yes.

How, then, can one know when someone is meeting these circumstances?

When you see it, you'll know it. If someone is shooting dozens of people on a train platform, are you going to give him the benifit of the doubt and walk on by thinking he doesn't want to kill you? If you had a gun and were the only chance that these people would live you would still just run away?

Perhaps this guy is killing you to save thousands of lives.

Then he should have explained it to me first. But exactly what this sentance is saying, is that you would sooner allow someone to execute you than you would ever shoot back? C'mon?

You can never be sure, and having an itchy trigger finger is only going to make things worse.

How? Just don't shoot the people, who, should all already be down on the ground. How the hell do you think police do it? You don't shoot at everything that moves.
But you do still have the duty to help.
Let me put it this way. If you saw a car crash on the side of the road, and saw someone bleeding everywhere, would you try to help them or just call an ambulance and wait? Same difference.

The best action in this terrorist scenario (or any scenario involving rogue gunmen for that matter) would be to engage in meaningful discourse.

These things keep happening because people don't fight back. That makes it an option.

[Snorri1234]

I mean, seriously, you are saying that these terrorists were complete buffoons and yet claim that they were so smart that they avoided being killed by the cops for quite some time?

I don't even see how you got that. I'm saying the terrorists were idiots, but the cops were worse. Scared out of their minds so it took them too long to regroup.

Despite what americans love to believe, most terrorists aren't exactly idiots. These terrorists had enough ammunition and explosives and guns to help them kill hundreds of people and there is not a doubt in my mind that they had prepared for this quite rigorously. Them shooting from the hip isn't exactly evidence that they were idiots, because they clearly did not care about where their bullets landed or if they had enough bullets to last them. Shooting from the shoulder is only really important if you want to hit a specific target, and they didn't.


Come on! Shooting from the hip? That is the first thing you learn not to do when you learn to shoot a rifle! It only works when trying to scare people off. You are telling me that these guys got their hands on explosives, good firearms, vital locations in the city and they never learned how to shoot a gun????

[Juan_Bottom]

Come on! Shooting from the hip? That is the first thing you learn not to do when you learn to shoot a rifle!

When you have a gun with a lot of kick, and you're firing off a lot of rounds, it's easier on your shoulder and back if you dont shoot from the shoulder. No joke. But it's harder to react like that.

Despite what americans love to believe, most terrorists aren't exactly idiots. These terrorists had enough ammunition and explosives and guns to help them kill hundreds of people and there is not a doubt in my mind that they had prepared for this quite rigorously.

It doesn't matter how many guns you have, or how much training. All it will ever take is a single shot.
Now these guys did know what they were doing, because they always had one person firing will the others reloaded. BUT! The photographer said that they walked right by him. He didn't say that they crouched and crawled between firing points. He also said that they saw him but ignored him.

and they never learned how to shoot a gun????

They definitly knew how to shoot the Aks. But they were not worried about being shot at, which is part of the point.

[Snorri1234]

Come on! Shooting from the hip? That is the first thing you learn not to do when you learn to shoot a rifle!

When you have a gun with a lot of kick, and you're firing off a lot of rounds, it's easier on your shoulder and back if you dont shoot from the shoulder. No joke. But it's harder to react like that.

I've shot an AK47 this summer, and even though you may be right it does make you far too inaccurate. This is why the guy who instructed me told me to shoot from my shoulder. Even with pistols shooting with two hands and taking the required position gives you so much more accuracy and less kick-back.

Unless you are saying that the terrorists learned their shooting from movies, it just strikes me as pretty retarded. They may not have been professionally trained soldiers, but they sure were trained in using firearms.

Despite what americans love to believe, most terrorists aren't exactly idiots. These terrorists had enough ammunition and explosives and guns to help them kill hundreds of people and there is not a doubt in my mind that they had prepared for this quite rigorously.

It doesn't matter how many guns you have, or how much training. All it will ever take is a single shot.

Ofcourse, but that shot needs to be accurate and the one shooting should not be scared. Don't forget that Mumbai is not really a society where people are used to shooting. It is the same here, cops are reluctant to draw and shoot their gun because they really don't want to kill someone. A lot of american gun-supporters overlook the fact that killing isn't exactly fun. Nearly all of them haven't actually ever killed someone.

Hell, even in the military a lot of soldiers miss on purpose because they don't want to kill anyone. This has ofcourse been reduced by making the military a very professional and heavily-trained organ, but previously new recruits would hesistate to actually kill someone. The photographer may have wished he had a gun, but would he really have calmly and without hesistation pulled the trigger? Untrained civilians are generally very bad at this, one of the reasons why vigilantism is such a terrible idea. Since the cops were reluctant to shoot the terrorists, why would a civilian without much weapon-training succeed?

Now these guys did know what they were doing, because they always had one person firing will the others reloaded. BUT! The photographer said that they walked right by him. He didn't say that they crouched and crawled between firing points. He also said that they saw him but ignored him.

Yeah, but none of that proves they were stupid. I think that they knew that the police were quite unprepared for them. I think the terrorists at that point really didn't worry too much about return fire because it was likely that there was going to be none. The cops are debating too much on what they need to do. They're wondering whether they might hit innocent people, whether the terrorists will shoot back and kill their fellows or them, whether killing a terrorist won't put them in even more danger and so on.

I love to say that I would personally shoot each and every one of those cocksuckers, but I also realise that when that time comes I wouldn't be as quick. Violence is just something most of us really don't like. Even when we've seen countless of violent movies, we still don't like to use it ourselves.

and they never learned how to shoot a gun????

They definitly knew how to shoot the Aks. But they were not worried about being shot at, which is part of the point.

Well they didn't like being shot at later on though. Don't forget this is a report of the early happenings. Everybody was taken off-guard.

[Ditocoaf]

Conservative's answer: BANG

And then it turns out you were mistaken and the guy was actually a working man on his way home to his family.

He was talking loudly on the phone and holding a metallic briefcase.

[Frigidus]

Conservative's answer: BANG

And then it turns out you were mistaken and the guy was actually a working man on his way home to his family.

In all fairness, the guy was being publicly black.

[Neoteny]

Conservative's answer: BANG

And then it turns out you were mistaken and the guy was actually a working man on his way home to his family.

In all fairness, the guy was being publicly black.

Probably a socialist too.

[atheistheretic]

Even if that guy had a gun, it would have been wrong for him to fire at the terrorists. For anybody who isn't a law enforcement official to kill or maim another human being without a prior fair-trial to determine guilt is a gross afront to justice and liberty. If he'd shot at the terrorists, then he ought to be liable for the same punishment as them (death or life-imprisonment).

I think vigilantes should be shot. preferably by vigilantes, creating an endless cycle.

[Juan_Bottom]

Conservative's answer: BANG

I'm a liberal.

Dito's answer: Survival of the fastest runner

I've shot an AK47 this summer, and even though you may be right it does make you far too inaccurate.

If they were shooting from the hip because of the numbers of rounds they were firing, accuracy was not their concern. How many rounds does a normal Klas clip hold? Like 30-ish? You just lift up when you are trying to be accurate. It doesn't matter if every bullet is on target, most people run when a gun is fired at them.

Unless you are saying that the terrorists learned their shooting from movies, it just strikes me as pretty retarded. They may not have been professionally trained soldiers, but they sure were trained in using firearms

I truly think it was part because of the number of rounds they were firing, and part because of their lax attitude toward the massacre. Either way, they were shooting from the hip.

Ofcourse, but that shot needs to be accurate and the one shooting should not be scared. Don't forget that Mumbai is not really a society where people are used to shooting.

I'm simply argueing the validity of defending yourself, family, and community. If I'm the only one around, and there are no cops, do I not have duty to save lives, namely my own? Who could lock me up for that?

It is the same here, cops are reluctant to draw and shoot their gun because they really don't want to kill someone.

You may not want to kill, but police always draw their gun, or tazer. For them, it's not whether you want to kill, it's whether you would chance to be killed.

A lot of american gun-supporters overlook the fact that killing isn't exactly fun. Nearly all of them haven't actually ever killed someone.

You do what you have to do. Some people run, some freeze, and some react, that's just the way it is. People who can't pull the trigger wouldn't be carrying a gun.

The point is, if someone has a gun, shoots back, and kills alll three militants, then why would you punish that person? That person is a hero.

The photographer may have wished he had a gun, but would he really have calmly and without hesistation pulled the trigger?

He had no problem shooting them with the camera did he? He even crawled around to get a better angle. Imagine if he did have a gun.
Snorri, you have shot a gun, are you saying that you couldn't shoot back to save a life?

I think that you Europeans have been pussy-whipped about gun saftey. It may not be true, but that's certainly the feeling that I get.

Yeah, but none of that proves they were stupid.

No, I'm saying that they were vulnerable. They weren't as skilled as you'd like to believe. You can't be very smart to go balls to the wall with any government to begin with. A gun makes you feel invinvible, and more-so I'm sure with everyone fleeing in front of you.

And then it turns out you were mistaken and the guy was actually a working man on his way home to his family.

This is nothing like that. Apples and oranges.

I think vigilantes should be shot. preferably by vigilantes, creating an endless cycle.

Win!

[Snorri1234]

I've shot an AK47 this summer, and even though you may be right it does make you far too inaccurate.

If they were shooting from the hip because of the numbers of rounds they were firing, accuracy was not their concern. How many rounds does a normal Klas clip hold? Like 30-ish? You just lift up when you are trying to be accurate. It doesn't matter if every bullet is on target, most people run when a gun is fired at them.

Unless you are saying that the terrorists learned their shooting from movies, it just strikes me as pretty retarded. They may not have been professionally trained soldiers, but they sure were trained in using firearms

I truly think it was part because of the number of rounds they were firing, and part because of their lax attitude toward the massacre. Either way, they were shooting from the hip.

Exactly. I just have a problem with the article portraying them as idiots who didn't know how to shoot. They probably knew that the only ones who had a gun were the cops and that the cops weren't trained very much in handling these situations, so they didn't act very proffesional at the start.

It is the same here, cops are reluctant to draw and shoot their gun because they really don't want to kill someone.

You may not want to kill, but police always draw their gun, or tazer. For them, it's not whether you want to kill, it's whether you would chance to be killed.

Actually, that's just it. Cops don't pull their gun that often here.

A lot of american gun-supporters overlook the fact that killing isn't exactly fun. Nearly all of them haven't actually ever killed someone.

You do what you have to do. Some people run, some freeze, and some react, that's just the way it is. People who can't pull the trigger wouldn't be carrying a gun.

Why do you think the military trains their recruits to be able to shoot without hesistation? It's because the reaction of most people is not to shoot.

The photographer may have wished he had a gun, but would he really have calmly and without hesistation pulled the trigger?

He had no problem shooting them with the camera did he? He even crawled around to get a better angle. Imagine if he did have a gun.
Snorri, you have shot a gun, are you saying that you couldn't shoot back to save a life?

I am saying that I am not sure, and that judging from cases where people were put into that situation I would likely not.


This is exactly why all those pro-gun hypothetical situations are always retarded. People do not know what they would do in such a situation or whether they would accurately judge it. Why do you think we need cops? It's because they are trained to deal with this shit and normal people aren't. Vigilante justice is a terrible idea because it always works completely opposite of that which you see in the movies.

[Juan_Bottom]

Maybe, but I haven't truly seen a case where someone pulled a gun to protect themselves only to have their life destroyed.
But you can't ask a dead man if he would have liked a fighting chance.

This is exactly why all those pro-gun hypothetical situations are always retarded.

They're hypothetical, and no worse than you saying it's better to cut and run and allow the police to deal with it.
And as we've seen from this example, not everyone can count on the police to protect them. And not everyone could run away. If I were to imagine myself on that platform, trying to hide or run,... and some stupid bastard in the crowd started shooting at the militants, I would surely buy that man a tall beer. And by tall beer, I mean a happy ending.

[GabonX]

On second thought, in order to avoid being vigilantes (the apparent new fad term on the forums) maybe we should rely on the governmant for justice...


I'm pretty sure that these guys took away everyone's guns too...