Gun Control in France...obviously...not working
- Thread starter johnelmore
- Start date
- Status
kilimanjaro
New member
If the several attacks in Paris happened in, say, Dallas, one or two of the gun assaults could have had an armed civilian response, to what end no one can say. If New York or Chicago, probably no such response.
Can't do much about bombers.
Can't do much about bombers.
A very low number of Texas residents actually carry. The numbers are climbing but in the rare chance that an armed civilian were to find himself in such an attack, in Dallas, he would be very much alone.... With a comfy little pocket gun most likely.
I would guess that Vancouver or Spokane, WA, or dare I say Seattle.... Probably more people are armed per capita than Dallas.
Many in Texas may have a gun in the car or home... But most don't like the inconvenience to carry. Even my Ex would chastise me for carrying all of the time, and she had a license as well
I would guess that Vancouver or Spokane, WA, or dare I say Seattle.... Probably more people are armed per capita than Dallas.
Many in Texas may have a gun in the car or home... But most don't like the inconvenience to carry. Even my Ex would chastise me for carrying all of the time, and she had a license as well
The IRA were not stopped for lots of reasons, money support and firearms from America for example. But it was not because gun ownership is severely restricted in Northern Ireland. Hows that for ya. ?
How times change when terrorist attacks come knocking on your own door.
I am talking about attacks like 9/11 Boston bombing, oklahoma bombing, not armed individuals stopped a robbery etc. How have being stopped by armed individuals in America. ?
Last edited:
It's a bit obtuse to pin the resulting carnage of a coordinated terrorist attack on gun control.
Bingo. Concert attendees are often patted down or maybe wanded. Carry in bars and restaurants is difficult at best, and likely unwise if not illegal if you are out drinking on Friday night.
I would also imagine that pistols are of mixed effectiveness against homemade bomb vests, and especially in a crowd.
Bingo. Concert attendees are often patted down or maybe wanded. Carry in bars and restaurants is difficult at best, and likely unwise if not illegal if you are out drinking on Friday night.
I would also imagine that pistols are of mixed effectiveness against homemade bomb vests, and especially in a crowd.
Last edited:
Pond James Pond
New member
Well I'm so pleased members decided to show a little respect for the dead and dying in France by not turning this into a drum-beating... oh no, wait.... 
If people think that CCW would have done much to stem the carnage when there are 8 guys with fully auto AKs laying down fire, I suggest they take a reality check. Particularly as the means were either getting out of a van and opening up on a terrace of diners, or entering a crowded, noisy concert hall.
Yes, there is a chance they might have taken one out with a lucky shot to the head, other than than I can only see collateral damage as missed shots will have to stop somewhere else or in someone else.
I personally find it pretty poor taste to suggest those people are dead because France lacks CCW laws. I find it pretty poor taste to use this situation as a platform for a pro-gun agenda.
That comes from someone who is, as should be obvious, pretty pro-gun.
Facts check. I can remember stacks of explosions or bomb-scares. No mass-shootings. Most of the attacks on civilians, by the IRA, were bombs not guns. Guns were used against the army and targeted assassinations.
So, do let me know how an LCP against a parked car full of explosives works out for ya...
If people think that CCW would have done much to stem the carnage when there are 8 guys with fully auto AKs laying down fire, I suggest they take a reality check. Particularly as the means were either getting out of a van and opening up on a terrace of diners, or entering a crowded, noisy concert hall.
Yes, there is a chance they might have taken one out with a lucky shot to the head, other than than I can only see collateral damage as missed shots will have to stop somewhere else or in someone else.
I personally find it pretty poor taste to suggest those people are dead because France lacks CCW laws. I find it pretty poor taste to use this situation as a platform for a pro-gun agenda.
That comes from someone who is, as should be obvious, pretty pro-gun.
Facts check. I can remember stacks of explosions or bomb-scares. No mass-shootings. Most of the attacks on civilians, by the IRA, were bombs not guns. Guns were used against the army and targeted assassinations.
So, do let me know how an LCP against a parked car full of explosives works out for ya...
Ahem...
Did ANY civilian engage these terrorists at the start?
Anyone ?
Aside from the initial killings, it then took a loooong time to systematically
kill the next 90-100 in the concert.
Did anyone engage these killers?
ANYone....?
Sorry about it folks, but the scale of this massacre does have two big tap roots
-- one of which is so politically incorrect that I dare not even bring it up --
and the other being a totally defenseless citizenry in the face of pure evil.
Desperate rabbits up against a fence after a long drive across a big field.
I've never forgotten that image.
The latter is not tasteless.
It is fact.
Last edited:
g.willikers
New member
Maybe it just comes down to:
Armed citizens = some chance of defense and survival,
Unarmed citizens = no chance.
Armed citizens = some chance of defense and survival,
Unarmed citizens = no chance.
I think 8 guys gathering up a crowd of 1000's, 10% of which are active CCW holders, don't stand a chance. Just my opinion. I'm thinking they get engaged in the street and don't make it inside most likely.
Same for 1 or 2 hosing down a bar of 10% CCW holders. Let's just say their mag changes are gonna suck!
Mr. Pond, with all due respect, Americans really struggle with the idea of hope and faith anymore. Frankly, I don't hope or have faith that any gun control anywhere will be effective.
As for the people of the world affected by another terrible terrorist attack, I hope we can continue to support France with our thoughts and prayers as they figure out how to stop this in their borders and beyond.
Same for 1 or 2 hosing down a bar of 10% CCW holders. Let's just say their mag changes are gonna suck!
Mr. Pond, with all due respect, Americans really struggle with the idea of hope and faith anymore. Frankly, I don't hope or have faith that any gun control anywhere will be effective.
As for the people of the world affected by another terrible terrorist attack, I hope we can continue to support France with our thoughts and prayers as they figure out how to stop this in their borders and beyond.
Pond James Pond
New member
In a crowded concert hall, as I said, any missed shots would probably hit others so there you've got people shot up again.
To make a CCW a valid component, you'd have had to close the gap and fired at contact distances which I don't see happening.
Sure, if you come face to face, then engage... but to go looking for them? I don't think so...
If this had happened in a US city, I believe the response would have been the same: people would hear automatic gunfire and run. like. hell.
You assume that all holders would get into the fight and not run for safety. You're assuming they would recognise each other as CCWers, not assailants, that they would coordinate and attack in unison. I don't think any of that realistic.
My objections are nothing to do with supporting gun control. I am not for gun control. Nor am I advocating a dependence on "hope and faith".
I'm not even saying that having a firearm would do nothing and that there is nothing to be learnt. I'd rather have one than not, although I have no qualms in admitting that my survival in such a situation would be likely down to luck not a snub.
It is the fact that within hours of this horrific act there are members essentially saying "Well, there you go... That'll teach ya to have gun control..."
That I find tasteless.
IMHO, the time for "That's where gun control gets you" can come later.
If others find this perfectly OK, well.... what can I say?
On the other hand, the simple messages of solidarity and condolences are appreciated.
Last edited:
Survival in such situations depends on several factors, mind set, training, ability, and divine providence(I don't believe in luck). Mind set is the big one. We in the western societies have been conditioned, by the emergence of the nanny state, to having things provided for us. We expect to have the elements necessary for our basic survival to be provided for; food on the grocery store shelves; energy to run our toys, security, etc. Normalcy bias weighs heavily into this mind set. When something happens to upset the delicate balance, a majority of people will either panic, or simply acquiesce and wait for deliverance by the powers that be. Understand this clearly, gentlemen, it is up to us who are not burdened by standard sheeple mentality to be the gatekeepers. We are the ones who have to rise up and be the eyes and ears, the aware ones. It is our duty to help protect those around us. We have to develop the situational awareness, the mind set to help combat such evil as was witnessed in Paris. We do not know how many acts of unwarranted aggression are thwarted each year by the armed citizens of this country. Such stats are not kept, but I suspect they are much more than anyone realizes. Let us not lament the inaction of the majority of people, for such is to be statistically expected. Let us who are aware sharpen our skills and minds, develop our situational awareness, and be ready to react if and when we find ourselves in such a position. In such instances, it is we, the armed citizens, who are the tip of the spear.
There are reputedly 11 million people in the U.S. licensed to carry a concealed firearm. With over 330 million people in the country that works out to about 3%. Add to that the uncounted number in states where no license is required, but reduce that number by those who are licensed but do not carry regularly and a rough estimate of 2% of the population carrying at any given time is probably valid. That could mean in a movie theater seating 500 people, there would be 10 carrying a concealed handgun. Even if all 10 drew and engaged the terrorists (who are armed with automatic long arms) there will still be mayhem and death, but likely not as much as when everyone of the victims and potential victims are unarmed. More likely in my scenario is that there is a single attacker and two or three patrons who engage the shooter. My guess is that most of the theater attendees would be able to escape in this situation.
On the negative side, most venues where large numbers of people gather are already posted as "No Guns" zones. Here in IL such postings have the force of law, and my guess is that most concealed carriers do not carry when in such a location. We know that terrorists/mass murderers do not randomly choose their intended attack site, but deliberately choose places where they are least likely to face armed opposition.
Yet despite all the obstacles to stopping a terrorist attack such as suffered in Paris, or at least limiting the scope of the attack and the number of casualties, having widespread carrying of firearms, concealed or open, seems to offer at least marginal improvement over the absence of defensive weapons. But if we ever reached a level of concealed carry closer to 20 or 25%, we might see a very different outcome, if this was combined with an ending of so-called "Gun Free Zones".
We never seem to have an attempted mass shooting at an NRA convention, or at a local gun show. I personally remember working as a waiter many, many years ago at a wedding of a police captain's daughter. When jackets were removed, a majority of the guests were clearly carrying a gun. One of my fellow waiters remarked that he had never felt so safe working an event as he did that night.
Maybe someday our society will wake up and take to heart the expression that "an armed society is a polite society". Imagine if concealed carry were close to universal, and open carry permitted so that a typical movie theater or sports arena or public school would have multiple armed individuals around, including some with rifles or shotguns openly carried. Mass shootings and terrorist attacks would not be so easy to accomplish or likely be so effective as they are today.
On the negative side, most venues where large numbers of people gather are already posted as "No Guns" zones. Here in IL such postings have the force of law, and my guess is that most concealed carriers do not carry when in such a location. We know that terrorists/mass murderers do not randomly choose their intended attack site, but deliberately choose places where they are least likely to face armed opposition.
Yet despite all the obstacles to stopping a terrorist attack such as suffered in Paris, or at least limiting the scope of the attack and the number of casualties, having widespread carrying of firearms, concealed or open, seems to offer at least marginal improvement over the absence of defensive weapons. But if we ever reached a level of concealed carry closer to 20 or 25%, we might see a very different outcome, if this was combined with an ending of so-called "Gun Free Zones".
We never seem to have an attempted mass shooting at an NRA convention, or at a local gun show. I personally remember working as a waiter many, many years ago at a wedding of a police captain's daughter. When jackets were removed, a majority of the guests were clearly carrying a gun. One of my fellow waiters remarked that he had never felt so safe working an event as he did that night.
Maybe someday our society will wake up and take to heart the expression that "an armed society is a polite society". Imagine if concealed carry were close to universal, and open carry permitted so that a typical movie theater or sports arena or public school would have multiple armed individuals around, including some with rifles or shotguns openly carried. Mass shootings and terrorist attacks would not be so easy to accomplish or likely be so effective as they are today.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Several comments:
1. Let us avoid blaming the victims.
2. Carry issues:
a. You might shoot an innocent. There is a natural inclination to avoid hurting an innocent even to save more. This is the trolley car problem
However, shooting one innocent to save 100 - the rational calculation says this is acceptable.
b. You won't be effective. That depends, we have cases of such being effective as in the Colorado church. We have had long distance shots made as with the AF policeman who took out a killer at 75 yards. We don't know what will happen till it happens.
c. Carry and the public - it is a reasonable statement that carry rates are quite low. I know TX well and a survey found that 80% of CHLs don't carry. They want a 'car' gun. That's stupid I grant you as we got the CHL law because Dr. Gratia-Hupp had a car gun and it was useless.
Furthermore most CHLs have little training. They may shoot a rock in the boonies or be trained by 'Daddy'. Sigh.
Reasonable trained folks could disrupt a group of 4 to 5 terrorists. Would some guy with his Taurus 85 that he shot at a B-27 at 3 yards be optimal? No.
At the Kenya mall - when the Kenyan forces were paralyzed by indecision, politics and incompetence, folks with handguns did aid the situation.
If CCW or CHL is conceptualized as an LCP to scare away a mugger - then that's a failed world view in my opinion. There is more too it.
I would hope that carriers would come up to speed. I'm not saying that you shouldn't just run your butt to safety. However, to handle a firearm competently is a standard folks should try for.
1. Let us avoid blaming the victims.
2. Carry issues:
a. You might shoot an innocent. There is a natural inclination to avoid hurting an innocent even to save more. This is the trolley car problem
However, shooting one innocent to save 100 - the rational calculation says this is acceptable.
b. You won't be effective. That depends, we have cases of such being effective as in the Colorado church. We have had long distance shots made as with the AF policeman who took out a killer at 75 yards. We don't know what will happen till it happens.
c. Carry and the public - it is a reasonable statement that carry rates are quite low. I know TX well and a survey found that 80% of CHLs don't carry. They want a 'car' gun. That's stupid I grant you as we got the CHL law because Dr. Gratia-Hupp had a car gun and it was useless.
Furthermore most CHLs have little training. They may shoot a rock in the boonies or be trained by 'Daddy'. Sigh.
Reasonable trained folks could disrupt a group of 4 to 5 terrorists. Would some guy with his Taurus 85 that he shot at a B-27 at 3 yards be optimal? No.
At the Kenya mall - when the Kenyan forces were paralyzed by indecision, politics and incompetence, folks with handguns did aid the situation.
If CCW or CHL is conceptualized as an LCP to scare away a mugger - then that's a failed world view in my opinion. There is more too it.
I would hope that carriers would come up to speed. I'm not saying that you shouldn't just run your butt to safety. However, to handle a firearm competently is a standard folks should try for.
kilimanjaro
New member
Vito, your post is entirely valid. I just want to say that about half of that 330 million US population is adult, the remainder being minors or illegal aliens not allowed to possess a firearm. So that would make the percentage of adults who are licensed to carry closer to 6% or 8%, and your final figure also correspondingly higher.
Let's not forget that in some locales and times the national percentage could very well be nearly zero, or double or triple the average.
And of course, many licensees carry their weapon in the glove box of their car.
Let's not forget that in some locales and times the national percentage could very well be nearly zero, or double or triple the average.
And of course, many licensees carry their weapon in the glove box of their car.
Doint forget the atackers were carrying suicide vests, if people started shooting back, like when the french police did they would have blew themselvs up killing a lot of people. I asked the question erlier how manny terrorist atacks have being disrupted in America by civilians with firearms. ? If the rerrorists thought that people would be armed then they would just change their tactics car bombs etc. There are a lot of naive comments on this thread, doint make the mistake of thinking these people are stupit.
dakota.potts
New member
There have been terrorist attacks stopped by gunmen (Garland, TX comes to mind) but I'm less than optimistic about that being the answer in this situation.
Do I think it's morally wrong for a government to take away your tools for self defense or put up massive road blocks to owning them? Yes.
Do I think it would have made a difference here? Probably not. We're talking about one or two citizens armed with maybe a .38 revolver or a S&W Shield with maybe enough ammo for a reload or two versus a coordinated team of guys with automatic rifles and bombs. CCW might have allowed a single hostage a fighting edge to resist long enough to escape or get their family out, and for that I think it's worth carrying regardless. As far as stopping or even making a dent in the damages caused in this attack? I don't see it happening. When someone's got it out for you, you sometimes don't have much of a say in the matter. Most of us here train hard just to get the slight advantage over a crack head with a Raven .25, because even that's not a guarantee
Do I think it's morally wrong for a government to take away your tools for self defense or put up massive road blocks to owning them? Yes.
Do I think it would have made a difference here? Probably not. We're talking about one or two citizens armed with maybe a .38 revolver or a S&W Shield with maybe enough ammo for a reload or two versus a coordinated team of guys with automatic rifles and bombs. CCW might have allowed a single hostage a fighting edge to resist long enough to escape or get their family out, and for that I think it's worth carrying regardless. As far as stopping or even making a dent in the damages caused in this attack? I don't see it happening. When someone's got it out for you, you sometimes don't have much of a say in the matter. Most of us here train hard just to get the slight advantage over a crack head with a Raven .25, because even that's not a guarantee
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
They were killing people anyway and would use the vests in any circumstance. So if they got shot, maybe they couldn't pull the switch?
I don't understand the mentality of denying oneself the option to resist an attack. Sure, tactics might change but for those who can be stopped it would be nice to have a chance.
I don't understand the mentality of denying oneself the option to resist an attack. Sure, tactics might change but for those who can be stopped it would be nice to have a chance.
- Status