Are guns the Answer?

Kerri Houston of Regular Folks United suggests in her article that the terrorist attacks in Mumbai would not have occurred or been as deadly had citizens been armed.

Here's a snippet:

Last spring, while preparing for their murderous attack on Mumbai, ten terrorists dutifully took their driver's licenses and proofs of residency to their nearest gun licensing office to ensure that their rifles and handguns were legally registered with the appropriate authorities.

Seriously? Of course not - its ludicrous. Criminals don't stand in line to register weapons, and neither do terrorists. Only the law abiding do, unless - as in the case of India - they can't.

Although private gun ownership in India is allowable by law, bewildering licensing restrictions, bureaucratic red tape, and government policy that makes guns and ammunition prohibitively expensive renders gun ownership unattainable for most people- and provided the Mumbai terrorists unfettered access to their victims.

In fact, gun licensing is so difficult in India that even security guards don't have guns. When the terrorists entered the Mumbai train station and the Taj and Oberoi-Trident hotels, none of the guards were armed. Instead, they are issued bamboo sticks, a traditional Indian defense tool called a "lathi."

Read the full article here. What do you think? Could armed citizens have countered the terrorist? Could it have created more causalties?