Gun Control in France...obviously...not working

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by manta49
Quote:
The Paris attack has quite a lot to do with gun control actually in that gun control failed abysmally to do what the people of France were promised it would do: keep them safe.

Even if their was no gun control in France it would not have stopped the attack. Just like the lack of gun control in America did not stop terrorists attacks.

You're missing the point: the stated goal of gun control is to prevent things like the Paris attack from happening. The fact that it happened anyway is a graphic illustration of the fact that gun control is incapable of achieving its stated goal.

 

[manta49]

You're missing the point: the stated goal of gun control is to prevent things like the Paris attack from happening. The fact that it happened anyway is a graphic illustration of the fact that gun control is incapable of achieving its stated goal.

My point is that both are wrong, nither gun control or lack of it will stop attacks like in Paris. And both use tragic events like in Paris to try and get their view across.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You're missing the point: the stated goal of gun control is to prevent things like the Paris attack from happening. The fact that it happened anyway is a graphic illustration of the fact that gun control is incapable of achieving its stated goal.

Sorry, but this logic either doesn't cut the mustard, or ALL LAWS have failed because they have been violated.

Please show me where in French law it says that gun control will prevent terrorist attacks.

So you can't say that it has outright failed. That is ridiculous. Did it prevent this attack? Nope. Has it prevented other attacks? You just don't know. Has it kept thugs from being armed that would otherwise be armed and harm people? Maybe, but there is no real way to know.

To claim that gun control has failed because the attack occurred would be like to claim that CCW or gun ownership has failed when a CCW or gun owner gets killed during a commission of a crime...because if gun control has failed, then CCW and gun ownership have failed as well.

 

[wogpotter]

I have no independent confirmation of this but:
However there was initially a 3rd restaurant mentioned in the news, whish vanished permanently & immediately after the first reports. I remembered it because it was in the 7th arrondisment, where I used to live.

http://resistancerepublicaine.eu/20...biens-armes-auraient-abattu-deux-djihadistes/

It would be interesting if true that they got whacked most thoroughly by a bunch of Colombian drug dealers.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

You're missing the point: the stated goal of gun control is to prevent things like the Paris attack from happening. The fact that it happened anyway is a graphic illustration of the fact that gun control is incapable of achieving its stated goal.

I don't remember any bill passing with the idea it would stop terrorism. Even the 'organized crime' claims never made got anywhere. You can go through all the fact busting involved in the percentage claims of the Mexican guns, but it all boils down to the absurdity of organizations smuggling drugs by the ton or explosives being unable to find a source for firearms. I can't really remember much discussion at all about firearms restrictions and terrorism. Even after hearing claims the Boston bombs were made from loos powder sold for reloading.

In all of the news coverage of the Paris attacks I have not seen anything calling for increased gun control. The only thing remotely close was an article discussing the ready availability of REAL assault rifles in ?Molenbeek?

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Double Naught Spy
Quote:
You're missing the point: the stated goal of gun control is to prevent things like the Paris attack from happening. The fact that it happened anyway is a graphic illustration of the fact that gun control is incapable of achieving its stated goal.

Sorry, but this logic either doesn't cut the mustard, or ALL LAWS have failed because they have been violated.

A law of any sort is only obeyed for one of two reasons; either one respects the intent of the law or one so greatly fears the punishment for breaking the law that he/she dares not disobey it. In the case of gun control, the stated goal is almost always to prevent people from breaking another law such as those against murder, armed robbery, forcible rape, etc. The problem herein lies that, if one does not respect laws against such serious offences nor fear the punishment for them, which is usually more severe than the penalties for breaking a gun law, then that person is very unlikely to be stopped by the fact that their possession/use of a gun is illegal.

Mass murder, such as that which occurred in the Paris Attack, carries the most severe punishments under the laws of most countries (death or life imprisonment depending the locale), so it is pretty much impossible to make someone who does not fear the punishment for mass murder fear the punishment for breaking gun laws. As I've said for years, the whole notion that making violent crimes which already carry the most severe penalties "double illegal" by passing gun laws in order to prevent them is asinine.

Please show me where in French law it says that gun control will prevent terrorist attacks.

So you can't say that it has outright failed. That is ridiculous. Did it prevent this attack? Nope. Has it prevented other attacks? You just don't know. Has it kept thugs from being armed that would otherwise be armed and harm people? Maybe, but there is no real way to know.

What is a terrorist attack? Is it not simply a specific type of murder? Is a terrorist not simply a specific type of murderer? While I'm not up on the politics of France, I presume that the rationale that the French people were given for their gun control laws was that they would protect them from murderers and other violent criminals who would use guns to do evil upon the good people of France.

As far as how many terrorist attacks gun control has prevented in France, you're right I don't know how many there may be. I do, however, know that it failed to prevent the Charlie Hebdo attack in January and it failed to prevent the Thalys Train Attack in August (that one was fortunately stopped by some very brave people on the train). So we have three terror attacks with 150 people dead in just one year that gun control failed to stop.

Originally posted by johnwilliamson062
I don't remember any bill passing with the idea it would stop terrorism. Even the 'organized crime' claims never made got anywhere. You can go through all the fact busting involved in the percentage claims of the Mexican guns, but it all boils down to the absurdity of organizations smuggling drugs by the ton or explosives being unable to find a source for firearms. I can't really remember much discussion at all about firearms restrictions and terrorism. Even after hearing claims the Boston bombs were made from loos powder sold for reloading.

Every time there is a mass shooting in the United States, the usual suspects start beating the drum for gun control. Now, we don't call every mass murder terrorism because most of the ones we have here are carried out by lone lunatics rather than coordinated terrorist cells (though I personally find the latter much more frightening). That being said, the only thing that truly distinguishes a terrorist from any other mass murderer is his/her motive.

You are exactly right in your point about Mexican drug cartels and their access to guns: a motivated murderer will find a way to access a weapon of one sort or another. I would suggest that the more productive approach to reducing the number of murders is to focus on removing murderers from society rather than wringing our hands over what weapon they choose to murder with.

 

[gyvel]

One other thing that has mystified me---how do others packing heat that decide to start shooting discern who is who? Those guys wearing black hats are the bad guys?

I think the guy holding the AK and yelling "Allah Akbar" is a good choice.

 

[Brit]

I think the guy holding the AK and yelling "Allah Akbar" is a good choice.

That's a good one!

There is one fact, kicked around here, that can not be denied.

You have more chance of surviving any kind of an attack by terrorists/nut cases/cartel members, with rifles/pistols etc.

With a hi cap pistol on your belt, and the ability to use it, than with no weapons of any kind. This is a fact.

 

[Andy Blozinski]

The main casualty causing attack was at a concert venue where you wouldn't be able to legally pack in the states. So...there's kind of no connection to overall large scale gun control or not and it affecting the situation.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Just for the record, here in the USA, the rank-and-file left calls any mass shooting, regardless of perpetrator, 'NRA Terror', 'redneck jihad', and similar such language. They certainly do expect gun control to eliminate such events.

 

[Tom Servo]

Just for the record, here in the USA, the rank-and-file left calls any mass shooting, regardless of perpetrator, 'NRA Terror', 'redneck jihad', and similar such language.

Last week, the UK Daily Mail had a cover that decried the "NRA's sick Jihad." It's part of an ongoing attempt to paint the opposition as a deluded, stupid minority. They're smart enough not to insult all gun owners, so they're propping the NRA up as a strawman.

They certainly do expect gun control to eliminate such events.

Actually, they don't. They've admitted to as much. It's part of their incremental strategy to say things like, "it won't stop every mass shooting, but it's worth it if it just stops one."

Of course, proving a mass shooting never happened is impossible. When the next one happens (in spite of whatever law they might get passed), the refrain is that we need more laws.

 

[vito]

In France the likelihood of someone in that concert hall being armed is extremely low, due to their strict gun control limitations as well as banning guns in concert halls. In the U.S. the concert hall might be a GFZ but there well might be a number of armed patrons despite the No Guns sign.

 

[Unlicensed Dremel]

One other thing that has mystified me---how do others packing heat that decide to start shooting discern who is who[m]? Those guys wearing black hats are the bad guys?

Yeah, I always hear the gun haters asking that and the question itself mystifies me as truly the dumbest question ever asked. It's truly amazingly easy. The guy who is unprovoked shooting up innocents is the bad guy.

-James Holmes bursts through the door by the movie screen and opens fire on the crowd. Anti-gunners are very confused - think he might be a good guy.

Other examples are endless.

How about using our common sense after observing who is shooting willy-nilly at random innocents, and who is shooting BACK toward said person shooting willy nilly at random innocents? (Hint for simpleton lefties who might carry: Don't shoot at the guy shooting back at the guy shooting willy nilly at random innocents). I mean, if you can't figure that out, I would place a wager that you cannot tie your shoes either. I mean seriously - it's not hard - at ALL.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Yeah, I always hear the gun haters asking that and the question itself mystifies me as truly the dumbest question ever asked. It's truly amazingly easy. The guy who is unprovoked shooting up innocents is the bad guy.

If it was so amazingly easy, we would not have as man friendly fire incidents as we have. That is the problem.

Self defense isn't just about Paris style attacks, which happen to be amongst the most rare of attacks for folks on US soil. We just don't get many shootem-up foreign terrorists here. It isn't just people who are shooting, but those perceived to pose an immediate threat. They keep getting shot.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ots-and-kills-son-he-thought-was-an-intruder/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ne-camera-shot-by-police-on-his-own-property/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/white-officer-kills-black-mistaking-criminal-article-1.372647
http://fox40.com/2015/08/18/rancho-cordova-officer-fires-gun-at-another-officer-by-mistake/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo
http://abcnews.go.com/US/phoenix-family-lawsuit-cops-shot-homeowner-intruder/story?id=8756441

 

[TimSr]

The main casualty causing attack was at a concert venue where you wouldn't be able to legally pack in the states. So...there's kind of no connection to overall large scale gun control or not and it affecting the situation.

Considering nearly all of the recent mass shooting that occurred in the US seemed to happn in "gun free zones", I do see a "gun control connection".

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That the concert hall in France or a similar venue in the USA might prohibit firearms is a touch of a red herring and surprisingly for a gun forum a whine against being able to protect yourself.

Two massive attacks occurred in a mall (Kenya) and an hotel (Mumbai). Those folks might have benefited from having guns (and knowing how to use them). Rampage shooters have attacked schools and several states are now allowing campus carry and some have training programs for K-12 folks.

Gun control advocates would take away all possibility of firearms based self-defense. Surprisingly, may here seem to think that it is impossible to protect yourself.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Considering nearly all of the recent mass shooting that occurred in the US seemed to happn in "gun free zones", I do see a "gun control connection".

I think you are confusing "mass shootings" with "rampage shootings" or "public shootings" and most notably, the ones that make the big news.

Most of the "mass shootings" as defined by the FBI as being 4 or more people shot other than the shooter are not public sorts of rampage events, but domestic events, interpersonal conflict events, and drive-by shootings as done in gang territories that all of which tend to be either out on public streets, in public parking lots, or in residences or otherwise on non-commercial private property. These happen with much higher frequency than the work places, school, mall shootings, kill more people overall, but are underreported in the news.

Weirdly, people are going out and buying guns because there were some terrorist attacks in a foreign country. They haven't seemed to have much need for worrying about being killed by a neighbor in rural Texas (6 killed, http://www.cbs19.tv/story/30527788/...at-anderson-county-campsite-including-1-child), drivebys (http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-law/multiple-victims-reported-in-dayton-shooting/nnqSG/), or by a family member (http://www.startribune.com/document...ore-lake-minnetonka-murder-suicide/328731881/). Certainly, nobody wants to believe that they may be part of a mass shooting or mass murder conducted by a loved one or friend, so they don't worry about it, but if you are involved in such an incident, there is going to be a good chance that it is by somebody you know. Of course, most of us don't live in neighborhoods were mass shootings via drivebys are apt to happen either. "It can't happen here." So we don't worry about that.

Even with all those mass threats that are more common than mall attacks, people seemingly are more worried about a horrible terrorist attack than by getting murdered, raped, or mugged locally. People think funny.

Gun control doesn't stop terrorist attacks or attacks in gun free zones, but gun ownership and CCW doesn't stop all the gun attacks in non-gun-free zones either.

 

[rickyrick]

Been proven time and time again that strict gun control doesn't completely prevent these shootings. A strict government and an island might help, but, a large expansive nation with open borders it's probably impossible. Can't even keep out other illegal items.

This thread quickly turned to what the CCWer could do. In most cases, honest people don't carry to the venues because either local laws don't allow carry, or the proprietor or whomever is in charge of these things don't allow it.
We can't assume that a legal gun owner would even be a variable because in most cases he would not posses the handgun in good standing on the premises

 

[Brit]

The one area that a CCW carrier would be viable, the Mall shooter, as in one individual.

I was the husband driver? That is a husband who is not shopping, just the Jeep driver, love the company, love driving on a nice sunny day... Shopping? Not so much.

The Millennium Mall, just off the I4, in Orlando. Park, after dropping my Lady off at entrance, I have the name of the basic destination, a Children's Store, big sale! So I go for a walk around (Cell phones had by all) as I traverse the upper balcony area, I put a lone shooter, in my minds eye, in various locations.

The distances were many, and varied, one distance (in my rough estimation) that came up, quite a few times, around 30m.

Now project a rifle armed person a Nut case/Terrorist/ who ever, at that point? Could I put rounds on him, with my carry firearm, a Glock 19 4th gen, good trigger, TruGlo fiber optic sights, the pistol I use in IDPA, and have fired many rounds through? That is an area that a good shot, with a full sized pistol could be effective, and no question as to who the bad guy was.

The next thought, was he on his own? One question that now comes to mind, he is on the ground, but still moving? keep shooting?

An interesting exercise.

 

[Brit]

So, no comment when it comes to a real possibility, not the usual joke stuff?

The readers here can not see this type of situation, actually happening?