See, even though a gun would've been useful at that time, i find the idea of civilians carrying weapons, on their person, highly disturbing , something which wouldve made me about as uneasy in a shopping mall as the slight fear of a terrorist attack.
Plus, it would be possible for a terrorist to obtain a forged, or even a real gun permit(some of the backward states of India will surely become the hub for this kind of malpractices), which opens a whole new can of worms.

Civilians should be allowed to carry defensive handguns, and protect themselves against tyranny (which may be from the terrorists, mobs roaming the streets rioting, or corrupt police).  If you try to limit gun ownership with strict laws, the most hinderance will be to the law abiding citizens.  The criminal elements (in India as elsewhere) have always had the ability to have guns.  If their ability to intimidate others is checked by retaliation in the form of deadly force from the opposite side, they will think twice before proceeding.  I do draw the line against owning purely offensive weapons like assault rifles and rocket launchers, but having a handgun should be the right of any law abiding citizen.

...So how did these terrorists get their assault rifles to commit this attack? They're already banned in India, so it's pretty obvious that getting ahold of illegal guns isn't quite a major issue, is it?

At least with legal guns, it gives people the opportunity to fight back. India's police won't...So why not allow the people that are going to get tortured and murdered a chance to defend themselves?

Ultimately, it comes down to this: Criminals, terrorists or otherwise, WILL find a way to kill and maim. Even if guns are illegal, that does not prevent criminals from getting ahold of illegal weaponry. Look at gun crime in any country that has banned guns - gun crime still exists. Which shows that criminals have no regard for the law...So why should law-abiding citizens have their hands tied behind their backs, letting the terrorists kill them, while law enforcement looks on?

There was/is a VERY similar situation that happened in America concerning incompotent law enforcement: Hurricane Katrina. When the hurricane hit, many officers left their post, and abandoned the city. What was left of the city descended into lawlessness....Guess who survived, outside of the criminals? Gun owners. Gun owners took up the slack of the police, and defended their houses until law & order was restored to such a dire situation.

Here's a great story on gun ownership & home defense in the wake of a disaster:

http://www.gunowners.org/no02.htm

I ask you, after reading that: How was the ownership of guns a bad thing during the looting and criminal activities in NOLA during this time? What reasoning should a person NOT attempt to save their lives, and defend their homes? Or is life & property ownership such a trivial matter?