Great article by Abhijeet Singh over at American Thinker.
Since the horrific attacks in Mumbai, I’ve read a few articles and accounts of the ineptitude of Indian law enforcement authorities, due in large part to lackluster training and outdated weaponry and armor. Lee-Enfield-style .303 rifles. Tin helmets from the World War II era. This, from The Times of India:
In the absence of a firing range and of ammunition for practice, members of the law enforcement agencies have not opened fire in the last ten years. ‘‘I’ve been in the police force for a long time, but I had no occasion to open fire for practice,’’ a senior inspector of police said.
As per the police manual, officials ranking from constable to assistant inspector get rifles with 30 rounds each, and those with the rank of police sub-inspector and above get revolvers, also with 30 rounds each.
Ten terrorists attacked six targets. Ten. That means that they were often in groups of two or less. They went on a rampage for days and days, and had undoubtedly picked targets where they knew resistance would be especially light.
The American Thinker piece goes into personal-level detail not so much about the attacks, though it does mention a cameraman who during the assault on the train station opined that he wished he “had a gun rather than a camera,” as well as bystanders at the city’s Jewish outreach center who bravely–but in vain–attempted to fight off terrorists by throwing stones (stones!), as it does into the attempts made by the government there to disarm the people.
I read somewhere last week that the group of Pakistani terrorists had hoped to kill 5,000 people. With a couple more people, they might have been able to. Yet, just like that animal at Virginia Tech (I don’t care to use his name, even if I could remember it) might have been stopped short of killing 32 people with two handguns–including a .22-caliber Walther–by one single student or teacher with a concealed weapon and a permit, I cannot help but wonder if the Pakistani terrorists in Mumbai would have had the same unfettered access and killing ability should the Indian people have been permitted or even encouraged to protect themselves, or if they would have even tried it knowing as much.
Here in the States, after all, where gun ownership is vilified by so many on the political left, I’d be willing to bet that such a brazen attack–ten terrorists for six targets–would be considered, from the perspective of those who planned the attacks, to be woefully undermanned.