gun free zone in Mumbai

Deaf Smith

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
85
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122809281744967855.html

"The hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government, according to the hotel company's chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi. The gunmen raced through the marble-floored lobby, past the grand piano into the adjoining Verandah restaurant, firing at the guests and shattering the windows. . . "

And you wonder why it was so easy?

Deaf
 

grydth

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
150
Location
Upstate New York.
Apparently a number of the policemen who had to face these cannibals down were also unarmed. While I believe the homicidal success enjoyed by the terrorists was caused by more than this single fact, when nobody has guns but the mass murderers its a foregone conclusion that many will die.
 

Phoenix44

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
68
Location
Long Island
The problem was not that hotel security weren't armed. The problem was that India ignored advance intelligence which warned that the attacks were imminent. They knew their shores were vulnerable, that Mumbai's financial center made it a likely target, and that hotels would be attacked (it wasn't the first time). They had received warnings from a Muslim terrorist group months ago, and from U.S intelligence as well.

It's just another example of the powers-that-be not caring enough to stop it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081127.wbomb_security28/BNStory/Front/

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-as-india-shooting,0,2451807.story
 
OP
Deaf Smith

Deaf Smith

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
85
Phoenix,

A vauge warning, issued a month ago, is not enough for a police/military department to keep on their toes 24/7. Just cannot be done.

The warning would have to be specific. The shores of India covers a huge number of miles, as does their border (same problem we have.) The information would have to name names, times, dates, places, etc... not some vauge 'terrorist may try something'.

The Indian government does not trust their citizens. This is how they do things over there.

http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/

To trace the roots of India's anti-gun legislation we need to step back to the latter half of the 19th century. The British had recently fought off a major Indian rebellion (the mutiny of 1857) and were busy putting in place measures to ensure that the events of 1857 were never repeated. These measures included a major restructuring of administration and the colonial British Indian Army along with improvements in communications and transportation. Meanwhile the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government, under Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a "loyal" subject of the British Empire. . . .

India became independent in 1947, but it still took 12 years before this act was finally repealed. In 1959 the British era Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878.) was finally consigned to history and a new act, the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted. This was later supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. Unfortunately this new legislation was also formulated based on the Indian Government's innate distrust its own citizens. Though somewhat better than the British act, this legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the "Licensing Authorities", in effect ensuring that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indian citizen to procure an arms license. . . .

This changed towards the mid to late 1980s, when the Government, citing domestic insurgency as the reason, put a complete stop to all small arms imports. The fact that there is no documented evidence of any terrorists ever having used licensed weapons to commit an act of terror on Indian soil seems to be of no consequence to our Government. The prices of (legal & licensed) imported weapons have been on an upward spiral ever since - beating the share market and gold in terms of pure return on investment. Even the shoddy domestically produced guns suddenly seem to have found a market. Also since the Government now had a near monopoly on (even half-way decent) arms & ammunition for the civilian market, they started turning the screws by pricing their crude public sector products (ammunition, rifles, shotguns & small quantities of handguns) at ridiculously high rates - products that frankly, given a choice no one would ever purchase. . .

Deaf
 

Phoenix44

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
68
Location
Long Island
The warning wasn't that vague. For one thing, it specifically mentioned that the threat would come from the coast, and it specifically mentioned the Taj Mahal hotel. And if the warning was given a month ago, it would have allowed time for follow up and preparation. That preparation might have included armed guards at the hotel (because apparently the terrorists were very well armed, and prepared for a prolonged battle), but it might also have included better security at the ports.
 
OP
Deaf Smith

Deaf Smith

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
85
Yes but no Phoenix... The coast is long and Bombay is very big! Plus this is what they have for cops there:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5276283.ece

Most of the police involved were carrying .303s or self-loading rifles like those adopted by the British Army in the 1950s.

Some officers said that they were not given enough weapons training because of a shortage of ammunition and shooting ranges. In theory, all officers shoot 50 rounds a year in training. In practice, senior officers get their full quota with small arms.

The rest is all bunkum, Mr Pereira said. Its target practice with a .303 rifle. I wouldnt call it suitable knowledge of weapons and their uses in urban policing.

...

So that's it.... 50 rounds a year, if that. But there is more!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/C...ow/3783461.cms

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. Ive 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.

.
.
.
We have constables who have not opened fire even for practice ever since their recruitment, the official said.
 

KP.

Orange Belt
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
84
Reaction score
2
So, the contention is that a few armed security guards would have stopped terrorists who reportedly trained for over a year and carried significant military grade weapons -- including fully automatic AK's and grenades who were on a mission to kill as many people as they could?

These guys were smart enough to be carrying blackberries so they could use live news feeds over the internet to track police response, and you really think they couldn't have spotted a security guard?
 

Guardian

Black Belt
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
635
Reaction score
23
Location
Wichita Falls, Texas
It's easy for all of us to sit here and say this or that. These terrorist were geared for this and a few armed security guards probably would not have made a difference at all, a brief hesitation for the terrorist had surprise on their side and just how many of those guest would have been armed, let's get realistic here, you could walk into any hotel in American and not everyone is armed either nor are they on your typical day in a business district either. It's a sad fact that something like this was unfortunate and no amount of warning could predict the exact time that it would occur. It sucks and it happened, learn from it and take pre-cautions in the future to ensure it doesn't again or at least make it as hard as possible for it to.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,595
Reaction score
4,888
Location
England
As had been said, the terrorists were smart and had spent a long time planning this. if the gaurds and police had been armed they would have just planned it a different way to achieve the same amount of death and destruction.
For them it's war and we've sent enough troops into engagements in various wars to know that an armed enemy is not unexpected and can be dealt with. Every guest, every guard and every policeman could have been armed with up to date weapons and ammo, the death toll would have been the same or worse, it was all in the planning.
 

still learning

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
3,749
Reaction score
48
Hello, If they terrorist were to attack here? In USA? ....Most stores, shopping centers, HOTELS...do not carry arm guards.

So even if warnings came? .....most of these places could not efford ARM GUARDS....and because of local police are arm...another reason NOT to arm guards.

"Are we living in world? ...where we need to be arm?

Aloha,

Arm is not the same as leg.....?
 
Top