"...Poisoning the water supply for a major city..."

Years ago I read somewhere, don't recall where, that poisoning a large water supply was not all that feasible. Something to do with the large volume of water and the amount of "poison" that would be required. Maybe Doc Blast will know something about that...

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."

"Training good, Not training, bad"...

I'll buy that for a dollar!

A gun, like any other tool, is useless if you lack the confidence to use it effectively. I read a reporter walked up to some of the cops that were armed and hiding behind whatever they could find during the firefight (if you can call it that) and basically yelled at them to shoot back, to which they just looked at him and smiled sheepishly.

Absurd!

I got kinda lucky in those - I used to walk through the mailroom at work every day where one of the people got sick from the mailed Anthrax... Talk about dodging a bullet. Yes, I know the victum

Most of the news shots I saw showed the military/police armed with Enfield No.4 Mk 1's (or Mk2?). Not a bad rifle, IF the shooter is well trained, which apparently they were not, and knows the limitations of that weapon...

"the country should expect a terrorist attack in the next five years."

Oh, my... well, the election is over, so now the news media is scrounging around for news to fill the voids. More on the imminent (possibly some time within the next 100 years) Birdie Floo any time now.

yawn.....

Sue

I'd guess most Americans are far more likely to be harmed by a natural disaster, or an economic one, than by a terrorist attack, over the next five years. Or an auto accident, major illness, house fire, . . .

There are plenty of other things to worry about. Its just that I get paid to worry about things like biological or chemical attacks, just like the news media gets paid by sensationalizing them.

Jeff

Not much training is required to use the Enfield No.4, it is probably the simplest rifle to use out there. Pull the bolt back, push it foward, line up the vertical metal protrusion at the end of the rifle where the bullet comes out into the centre of the round hole at the back of the rifle just above the bolt at what you want to shoot then pull the trigger.

This is what can be acheived in trained hands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x3lOZ4yX6Y&feature=related

The idea that a couple of AKs outclass dozens of Enfields is just laughable.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article14086308.ece

Stopping to think this one thru, gave me pause to reflect on payday's at Fort Gordon, Ga. (circa. 1988)
Outside each temporary "pay facility" (read gym) were stationed multiple soldiers who had been to basic combat training, but were still in training for their MOS. Each soldier was armed with an M16 and two magazines. One mag was empty and inside the weapon. The other had very few (maybe 5 or 10) rounds and was stored in a pants cargo pocket. Inside that cordon were MP's armed with sidearms and shotguns or rifles. Inside the building were more MP's similarly armed (plus a K9 team). The trainees were instructed not to even load unless the MP's were already engaging targets. Could it be these fellows were armed with empty weapons? Sounds absolutely impossible to believe, but stranger things have happened.

The Lee-Enfield No. 4 is a good bolt action rifle for sure but in urban warfare it just can't compare to something like the AK-47. The Lee-Enfield can be shot rapidly, but it takes real skill and training. An inexperienced shot will have a hard time getting used to the .303 if he has barely fired a rifle before. The AK-47 is just that much easier to use, less kick, far better magazine capacity, semi- and auto fire. Of two equally skilled marksmen the one with an AK-47 will likely beat the guy with a bolt action pretty much any time fighting in a built-up area IMO.

If you looked closely, when TS really HTF the Indian security forces pulled back and called in the heavy guns. I saw some fairly funny footage of a couple of guys struggling to set up an automatic grenade launcher. As far as firepower goes, it was a quantum leap over the Lee-Enfield though.