Via Firehand I found this quote:
So you think that ordinary citizens armed with handguns would slow down a surprise attack by trained paramilitary forces armed with automatic weapons, grenades and who knows what else? I’m curious how you see that scenario playing out.
The way I see it, if terrorists such as these could rely on a “significant number” (and I don’t know what that means, exactly - 10 percent? 20 percent?) of their targets carrying guns, they wouldn’t bother taking hostages. They’d just slaughter everyone in sight. They might take a few hits, but they’d have planned for that, just like any army would.
My answer, being a professional soldier, is that private citizens carrying firearms would save the lives of OTHER citizens by slowing down and disrupting the plans of the attacking force, and possibly prematurely ending the attack.
In Israel armed citizens have stopped attacks, and it was a Holocaust survivor who saved lives at Virginia Tech by using his body and a door.
My other opinion, being a professional soldier, is that nobody plans for every contingency. The best thing we can do, that we do, is plan a desired endstate and give our soldiers all the resources they need to bring about that endstate within the restrictions placed on us.
My final observation, this pussy overestimates the enemy. The enemy is a poorly fed religious fanatic who received only enough training to do the job his handlers need him to do. His handlers train him to do one specific series of tasks, and that is it. He is not a thinker, not trained to adjust on his own.