And a second related piece:
1). On what to do - Some folks think we are advocating running into the fight screaming with a knife in one hand and a snubby in the other. I'm not sure where that comes from, as it has never been suggested and is quite silly when you think about it.
Still, an aggressive counter attack at the outset of the incident seems to be a better option than hiding and hoping to go undetected once the bad guys have consolidated their forces. I do think that if you are unarmed (why would anyone do that today?), your options are very limited.
Additionally, if you are not at the point of contact, going to the fight may not be smart as you don't have any more info other than shots have been fired.
Going out in a blaze of glory is not on anyone's "to do" list here - at least I don't think so. But hiding helplessly and calling for help is not on it either.
If you can't do anything about the event, I am all for getting the “foxtrot” out of dodge. As far as evidence gathering - or getting intel out - or helping the police identify the bad guys, etc. Why is that your problem?
2). If you are armed (as well you should be), and know what is happening beyond a shadow of a doubt (its not the DEA in a firefight with a drug dealer that you are now intervening in), and in a position to shoot the bad guys - well - what do you think you should do?
911? Nope - not for me. Someone else can do that.
Call someone else ? Not at that point - not for me.
I am either engaging, or getting out. Once I am out, I may call, but when in the fire, you either fight, fly, or fry.
3). Before considering engaging the bad guys, consider who is with you. For example, endangering your family to save someone else may be seen by some as the epitome of selflessness, but I see it as the epitome of stupidity. I got a chance to speak with a Deputy whose daughter was killed by an armed robber because he chose to put another’s property and safety above that of his own family. Bad choice - very bad choice.
If I am in a Mumbai-esque situation with them, my job is to use my skills to get them out. Those who did not prepare are on their own until I get them to, what I consider, safety. If fifty unarmed peacenik liberals get slaughtered because I chose the safety of my tribe and family first, oh well - they made their bed, now they can bleed in it.
Now, having said that, if any tangos are in your way as you egress, you bet you should shoot your exit right through them. If I am alone, I may do something different, but family and tribe comes before anyone and anything else…so should yours.
4). If I am at ground zero, when the bad guys begin shooting, and I am alone, I will attack. Not because it is the best thing to do, but because it is the only thing to do. What other option do you have? I suggest you do likewise. And understand the tactical implications of "ATTACK". It doesn't mean running into their midst with a knife in one hand and a Glock in the other screaming “Wolverines”. If that is what you think attacking means- dude! - you need to come to class and get updated. How many times have I made an issue of shooting from long range in the Terrorist Interdiction Course?? Attack means you get your sights on the terrorist (his head if possible) and you smoke him in cold blood. This is vastly different from a typical civilian CCW self-defense shooting. There is no need for warning - no requirement to do anything, nor any chance given for surrender.
Perhaps AMBUSH is a better word.
5). I do not see the advantage in hunkering down and allowing the event to consolidate itself while you, the good witness, gather and pass information. That may be what the authorities want you to do as it benefits their mission. But YOUR mission is different.
I see what goes on in the Al Qaeda Training Video, and what has taken place in nearly every event where there have been organized terrorist active shooters. They have a plan and once they are able to consolidate their forces your options get very very limited.
An example - they know you are hiding in a covered area - and they will notice once they either stumble upon you in their security sweeps, or when you fire at one of them. They order you to come out. You tell them to go suck bacon. They grab a little girl and blow her brains out right there in front of you and her mother. As she falls, they grab another one. The mother is no longer screaming as she has been butt stroked into unconsciousness. Then they tell you again to come out as they grab up her sister and put the muzzle of an AK in her mouth. This is right out of their play books.
6). Some guys are assuming the bad guys will be using AKs. I think in Mumbai they used AKs because that was what they could get in Pakistan. One of my contacts - a man who should know, advises the rifles they used were Pakistani military AKs. If G3s would have been available, they may have used those.
Some think the AK will always mark you with the image of “the bad guy”. I think having ANY rifle in your hands may do that in these cases. Some interesting things in this area. I have asked several police guys about this and the truth is they can't readily distinguish between a FAL and an SKS. A rifle is a rifle and a pistol is a pistol. That is usually as far as it gets.
Another case in point – The Beltway terrorists Malvo and Mohammed, they used an AR-15.
Interestingly enough, there has been a fair bit of off the schedule training of cops with AKs. Agencies that allow their people to buy their own stuff are seeing more and more AKs in service. Specially the Arsenal SLRs in 223.
7). If the event is a typical psycho-lone gunman type thing like Trolley Square, Tacoma Mall, et al, you can expect a reasonably quick police response (still in the realm of several minutes at best). So the idea of picking up one of the bad guy’s rifles may not be either needed, nor wise. If you find yourself in this, you will be fighting with your pistol, not with the bad guy’s rifle, nor your personal rifle. Time to go get it, you will not have.
In a Mumbai/Beslan type event you can bet the tangos will have set up something to delay the police. Whether it is explosives, or outside shooters (which you may need to deal with as you egress anyway), or something. In such an event, picking up the bad guy’s weapons is an option. An option, but not one without risks. It gives you a better capability to engage and drop tangos than your CCW pistol, but in these events, anyone with a rifle may still be mistaken as a bad guy.
. I have heard a great deal of discussion about whether Mumbai was a practice run or not. This attitude is usually seen in very US-centric thinkers. Not everything that happens around the world has anything to do with us. This was as much a practice run as Pearl Harbor was a practice run for the invasion of the Philippines.
Terror is seen as a tool by the terrorists, and not usually as an end in itself. There was a reason for Beslan, The Twin Towers, Madrid, etc. Terror creates fear and the realization that the authority in power cannot protect anyone. This will either bring a solidarity against the evil, as has been seen in Israel, or the desire to appease the evil, as has been seen in Europe. Terror hopes to appeal to that appeasement mentality who wants to give in to the terrorist so the terror will stop.
It also appeals to man's natural hatred. In this case, it appeals to the Indians who will say - "See what happens when we make friends with Americans and Jews".
It will also appeal to those who will say, "See you cannot trust Pakistan. Pakistan is and always has been, our enemy".
The fomenting of those sentiments and their cultivation and development, which may be strategically seen as an advantage by the terrorist masterminds, is what Mumbai was about.
Still, one cannot ignore that many victims there did not give a flying fornication about US Foreign Policy, India's Alliances, or Islam's Expansion, but they were still tortured and killed, specially if they were Jews or Americans.
Gabe Suarez
