First, Basecamp, do not edit my post down to soundbites and then respond to the individual sentences. That takes them out of context, and constitutes an act of rudeness to fellow forum posters. This forum is based on a respectful discussion of ideas, giving your discussants a fair shake no matter how much you disagree with them.

As for your claim that there are "mass attacks" in history -- I assume you mean massive casualty from one or two attackers -- please cite me some good examples from the 5th century. Don't call anyone political if you can't. The fact is modern firearms increase tremendously our combative power, in a way that even 19th c. firearms do not. If there are any doubts, please ask the numerous Japanese soldiers who, having run out of ammunition, charged at American machine gun nests with little more than naked bayonets. As Colonel Cooper said, bushido is fine, but it's no match for 30-06.

As for my mention of the Fort Hood shooting, the point is that even people who were trained for combat could not successfully resist a prepared, trained attacker. They had the desire to live as much as anyone else. Why did it take armed people to take him down? You seem to be underestimating the typical chaos of combat, which includes psychological confusion. Knowing what to do to improve your chances of survival is one thing. It's quite another to gather up the psychological resources to carry it out.

Basecamp, if we are confronted with a shooter, I'll charge with you, along with anyone else. We'll be right behind you every step of the way. Will you still run towards him to take the first bullet, to certain death, so that others will have a better chance of survival? Or will you be like the others, hoping that it would be someone else, and not you, to take a bullet, and that you will be among the survivors behind this brave man? What makes you KNOW that you will actually walk the walk when the time comes? What can you say to convince us that you are not just talking big behind the safety of the keyboard?

You haven't said anything to dissuade me from the belief that it's best to catch the criminal at the source. I believe the same strategy for airport security: don't catch things, which can always change and be hidden, but catch the people who would use the things. I don't think we're having a useful discussion. If you know effective tactics to deal with Breivik situation, please share.

Da Bing