On an earlier post related to the Westgate Mall attacks, I used the term “appropriate and aggressive use of the gun.” I have been trying to come up with a nice and appealing way to say what I have to say, but sometimes you have to go full frontal and tell it like it is, no matter how some people may take it.

A wee bit of history first. On 17 December 1996, the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru took over the Japanese embassy in Lima, Peru and held 72 hostages for 126 days. MRTA although less fanatical that the defunct by then Shinning Path Terrorist/Cult group, they had no qualms in being quite nasty if needed. At the end, Peruvian Special Forces attacked and retook the embassy with only one hostage dying and that was not at the hands of the terrorists but because the gentleman had a heart attack as he was being taken outside by the soldiers. All terrorists were killed and this was controversial for one reason: the teams that attacked the different concentrations of terrorist were closely followed by “mop-up” teams that made sure none of the terrorists were alive to continue making mischief even if they were wounded and apparently surrendered. After the rescue was over, the complains about excessive use of force and outright executions were made, but the response from the military was that their aim was to rescue the innocent whatever the cost and that included making sure the terrorists were no longer a threat. The same tactic was used in the Moscow’s Nord-Ost Theater hostage crisis against Chechen terrorists including women carrying explosive vests that were under the effects of a sleeping agent and out for the count: They all got a bullet to the brain.

How does this apply to us carrying a concealed weapon every day? Haven’t we talk and argued day in and out about using a gun to stop a threat and contained within what the law allows us to do? Yes and it still applies, but when it comes to a terrorist attack by multiple individuals with no regard for their lives and much less for our lives, the rules change drastically. A terrorist attack by fanatical islamists is simply warfare brought to your doorstep (or your table at the food court in the mall) and a new defensive strategy must be adapted to it.

Getting the hell out of the location is still priority number one. If that fails, finding a location which is away from the fracas and easily defensible is the alternative. But in trying to achieve any of the above goals, we may come face to face (or if we are lucky, our faces looking at their backs) with those trying to kill us. If the gods of warfare smile upon us, we may be able to either shoot first or accurate (hopefully both) stopping the terrorist. But it is then a tactical and moral imperative to make sure that the terrorist is not able to do any more damage  by properly placing a bullet inside his head assuring his death.

This new generation of terrorists are not only fueling their rampages with jihadist fanaticism but also by ingesting drugs that increase their aggressiveness and threshold of pain. These additions make them continue even when a normal body would be begging to shut down. Tactically it would be foolish to shoot one of these examples of the modern communion of religion and chemistry in the chest, watching go down and assume he is neutralized. The last thing you want as you are trying to evacuate the area is the surprise of the bastard getting back up and repaying your kindness with assorted shots to your rear. And even if you manage to leave before the Terrorists gets back up, he will get back into action and probably kill other innocent people before his internal system finally collapses.

I forget where I read ” A head shot is always honest.” or words to that effect. We should strive to make these misguided souls to be as honest and peaceful as we can make them if nothing else for our safety and the safety of others.

Be warned that these are my particular thoughts for this very narrow scenario. I do not know what kind of legal consequences a person might face by applying that extra shot to the brain pan of a terrorist. I know that there will be the usual amount of Monday Morning Quarterbacks wringing their hands and demanding that the DOJ and the ACLU launch an investigation on the possible abuses of human rights against the poor misunderstood bastards, but really you will be facing that onslaught of bullshit alive.

It is up to you to accept, mull or totally discard the above rant.



Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

9 thoughts on “The appropriate and aggressive use of the gun for events like Westgate Mall.”
  1. I agree. A criminal attack is just that, but these Jihad attacks are nothing less than war. You shoot to stop a criminal, but you shoot to kill an out-and-out enemy.

  2. Sometimes anchoring rounds are warranted, even if they’re frowned upon. Such situations are rare, but as you said, they do exist.

  3. The old saying was:

    Two in the head, make sure they’re dead”.

    Not particularly PC, but true non the less. Back in the 80’s there was a terrorist attack w/ hostages in London. Don’t remember much about it, except the SAS got highly criticized in the press,because as each one passed a down terrorist, he put 2 more rounds in the body.

  4. Joe —

    Heh. That was taught as SOP for building clearance and the accepted SOP for the _initial_* sweep through an outdoor objective. . . for regular infantry in the 1980’s.

    * (Can’t shoot ’em on the mop up sweep — that would be “executing the wounded”. But in the first pass during an assault through the objective? Cool. . . )

Comments are closed.