From what I read about the Mumbai attack, the armed police were unwilling to shoot back until way late in the game. So much for gun control...
From a newsletter I receive:
Editorial Notebook: Cops Need to Train? With Guns?
By Rich Grassi
According to The Times of India, the law enforcement units responsible for the safety and security of Mumbai (Bombay) had few arms and no firearms training. Cops in the city had 577 rifles, some from the days before independence and others a model of a rifle originating 61 years ago. It appears the attackers also used older rifles. (Note: "old" doesn't always mean "bad.")
In addition, the constabulary has no firing range and no ammunition for practice. The story alleges that law enforcement employees hadn't discharged firearms in training for the last ten years.
The Times reports that the police manual allows those in grade from constable to assistant inspector "get rifles with 30 rounds each" and grades of sub-inspector and up get "revolvers, also with 30 rounds each."
To contrast, the state police training commission in one state, Kansas, requires officers qualify on a course that mandates fifty rounds every year. That doesn't relieve Kansas police from training with firearms beyond qualification.
Why is there no training? The story relates that an unnamed "senior" official admits "the norms prescribed in the manual now exist only on paper because of the acute shortage of ammunition for practice and the non-availability of a firing range." This hits close to home for lots of us who have agency ranges closed because of "noise considerations." I guess it was noisy in Mumbai . . .
So, if you see photos of the police standing around while terrorists use tourists, military and police as targets, now you know why. The cops didn't know what to do.
A basic pistol class in this country usually goes for 3-6 days and can consume up to 1,500 rounds of ammunition. It's about the same for patrol rifle.
Repeat after me: "Training good, Not training, bad."