Gun Control in France...obviously...not working
- Thread starter johnelmore
- Start date
- Status
You are right in a way the terrorists knew that the people were unlikely to be armed. If they knew that some of the people would be armed then they would just of used a different method of attack. So its a red herring to think arming people in france etc, something that is not going to happen lkie it or not is going to prevent terrorist attacks or limit the efects. The terrorists can strike any time or place using different methods. My opinion is based in part on a life time of living trough a terrorist campaign and seeing their methods evolve. Lots of civilians were armed here it did nothing to stop the terrorist campaign.
"But you can say armed citizens did not stop the attacks that have aready taken place in America."
Yes, and having car insurance didn't stop a car accident either. That's an equally foolish argument.
Distasteful or not, expressing a defense of gun ownership and citizen vigilance is timely, regardless of the circumstances- and perhaps more relevant in the face of such a tragedy. Anytime there is a shooting in America, the media-driven chorus crying for disarmament sounds loudly, as it does in other passive Western countries. If "distasteful timing" mattered, and honest citizens kept quiet during such circumstances, the US would no longer have a 2nd Amendment right to gun ownership.
Yes, and having car insurance didn't stop a car accident either. That's an equally foolish argument.
Distasteful or not, expressing a defense of gun ownership and citizen vigilance is timely, regardless of the circumstances- and perhaps more relevant in the face of such a tragedy. Anytime there is a shooting in America, the media-driven chorus crying for disarmament sounds loudly, as it does in other passive Western countries. If "distasteful timing" mattered, and honest citizens kept quiet during such circumstances, the US would no longer have a 2nd Amendment right to gun ownership.
Manta, did the IRA pull several hundred into a building and begin shooting
them one at a time? -- killing more that a hundred?
Last time I looked, the Greysteel 'massacre' netted all of eight dead.
That the bad guy has the initiative and can choose his time & technique goes
w/o serious question (especially since we have culturally blinded ourselves to
the best defense).
But I want to limit his options anyway -- and not deliberately be that rabbit
up against the fence if/when things go South.
them one at a time? -- killing more that a hundred?
Last time I looked, the Greysteel 'massacre' netted all of eight dead.
That the bad guy has the initiative and can choose his time & technique goes
w/o serious question (especially since we have culturally blinded ourselves to
the best defense).
But I want to limit his options anyway -- and not deliberately be that rabbit
up against the fence if/when things go South.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
So if some are saved during evolution - is that bad?
By extension, no measures or defenses are worthwhile as the threat will evolve. So, let's just make it easy for them. Then they don't have to do any research.
The Colorado church incident never should have happened. Dr. Lee Silverman should just have died. The Vice principal who used his 1911 to stop the shooter kid should have just waved at him.
Not every terrorist is going to become Dr. Doom and his exploding car. Lone wolf or small groups still may go for the easy gun attack. But let them.
People won't train in classes or on their own. They will carry Taurus 85s or PT-111s. So why bother having concealed carry laws at all?
So we are nuts if we want to train, carry a better and perhaps hope we could contribute to an incident? Nope, Hillary is correct - let's confiscate the guns like Australia. If it is all about saving your wallet from a Mugger, give him your wallet. If someone wants to penetrate you, just hold your breath.
By extension, no measures or defenses are worthwhile as the threat will evolve. So, let's just make it easy for them. Then they don't have to do any research.
The Colorado church incident never should have happened. Dr. Lee Silverman should just have died. The Vice principal who used his 1911 to stop the shooter kid should have just waved at him.
Not every terrorist is going to become Dr. Doom and his exploding car. Lone wolf or small groups still may go for the easy gun attack. But let them.
People won't train in classes or on their own. They will carry Taurus 85s or PT-111s. So why bother having concealed carry laws at all?
So we are nuts if we want to train, carry a better and perhaps hope we could contribute to an incident? Nope, Hillary is correct - let's confiscate the guns like Australia. If it is all about saving your wallet from a Mugger, give him your wallet. If someone wants to penetrate you, just hold your breath.
"You are right in a way the terrorists knew that the people were unlikely to be armed. If they knew that some of the people would be armed then they would just of used a different method of attack. So its a red herring to think arming people in france etc, something that is not going to happen lkie it or not is going to prevent terrorist attacks or limit the efects. The terrorists can strike any time or place using different methods. My opinion is based in part on a life time of living trough a terrorist campaign and seeing their methods evolve. Lots of civilians were armed here it did nothing to stop the terrorist campaign."
So the answer must be that we should all wait like lambs for the slaughter. Succumb to evolving terrorist tactics. Citizen appeasement. Let the government handle things after the fact.
Terrorists win.
So the answer must be that we should all wait like lambs for the slaughter. Succumb to evolving terrorist tactics. Citizen appeasement. Let the government handle things after the fact.
Terrorists win.
It's very hard to prove why something doesn't happen. Our high level of gun ownership or our stereotype of self-reliance may be a deterrent to some.
The problem with ISIS is that they're not a monolithic organization. They don't have a central headquarters. They send their message out via a polished social media campaign designed to appeal to the disaffected and unstable.
When an attack happens, they get the credit, but they've risked nothing as an organization.
As for France being a soft target...they really aren't any more than any other place. In fact, the Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (GIGN) is one of the world's premier antiterrorism agencies.
Yes, perhaps a few armed people in the crowd might have mitigated the situation. But I wouldn't cite the lack of that as a cause. There are many other factors.
Just 8 innocent civilians, thats not so bad then.
PS it was not the IRA it was the UDA. The IRA did pull 11 protestant work men out of a van coming home from work. Murdering them one at a time. Most of the firearms used came from terrorist supporters in America. As i have arready said i think people should be alowed firearms if they want. I am questing how effective it would be in stopping this type of attack.
Last edited:
Two things are going on here:
1. Will gun control stop these kind of attacks?... seems like a resounding, No.
2. Would armed citizens mitigate the size and scope of the attack?... Admittedly, that is a very complex question to answer, because we cannot quantify at which point other planned attacks have been mitigated. Maybe many plans were not executed at all due to the perceived likelihood that armed citizens may be present. Another aspect is the fact that the very places these things might happen are gun free zones in most of the USA. It seems that the consensus agrees that the number of armed citizens at these events are probably low; could the lone citizens effect the outcome?... maybe.
We all agree that we at least want to be given the choice and the means. I think that the probability of one of us here experiencing such a scenario, maybe not terrorists, but an active shooter of some type is increasing. The seldom talked about Clackamas Mall is a good case to look at but the stories are mixed as to what actually happened.
1. Will gun control stop these kind of attacks?... seems like a resounding, No.
2. Would armed citizens mitigate the size and scope of the attack?... Admittedly, that is a very complex question to answer, because we cannot quantify at which point other planned attacks have been mitigated. Maybe many plans were not executed at all due to the perceived likelihood that armed citizens may be present. Another aspect is the fact that the very places these things might happen are gun free zones in most of the USA. It seems that the consensus agrees that the number of armed citizens at these events are probably low; could the lone citizens effect the outcome?... maybe.
We all agree that we at least want to be given the choice and the means. I think that the probability of one of us here experiencing such a scenario, maybe not terrorists, but an active shooter of some type is increasing. The seldom talked about Clackamas Mall is a good case to look at but the stories are mixed as to what actually happened.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Even a miss will have effect. Many times a shooter has been stopped or severely hampered by misses.
I'd much rather have a "civilian" competitive shooter respond than a police officer who fires less than 100 rounds a year.The myth of the "well trained professional" police gunfighter is always amusing. Maybe those suggesting civilians would hit bystanders just think everyone should stand aside and let it play out.
At some point "ISIS" is going to figure out how to manipulate school shooters into using their methods(bombs) here in the US. Then we have real problems.
As for ISIS, everyone wants to talk, but nothing more. Arab Foreign Legion?
dakota.potts
New member
I still believe it's an abrogation of natural rights for a government to tell you you can't carry a firearm for self-defense. Were I in that situation, I would hope I had my firearm to have a fighting chance. I may take one or a couple out. I would want the chance to stop the attack or at least save myself and maybe a few others.
I remain unoptimistic that one or two concealed carriers would have completely stopped the attack. Is it possible we'd be reading about 115 killed, or 100, or 50, were somebody carrying a handgun? It's possible, I'll grant, I just don't see the likelihood. Especially in a music hall that likely sells alcoholic beverages where most states make it illegal to carry anyways. (That should be changed also - I don't see why it shouldn't be treated like a car where the prohibition only takes effect if you're drinking or intoxicated).
There may be a case made for loosening restrictions in France - I hear they've done it recently. The way to do that is not going to be by arguing that terrorists chose to attack it based on being unarmed or trying to establish a causation that we can't yet support with evidence. It should be on a platform of natural rights for self defense. I've heard they already have very limited concealed carry licenses. Perhaps they can make a push like Israel has to make those a little more accessible to the average person - although I imagine it'll take a good bit more training and bureaucratic hoops than most US states.
I remain unoptimistic that one or two concealed carriers would have completely stopped the attack. Is it possible we'd be reading about 115 killed, or 100, or 50, were somebody carrying a handgun? It's possible, I'll grant, I just don't see the likelihood. Especially in a music hall that likely sells alcoholic beverages where most states make it illegal to carry anyways. (That should be changed also - I don't see why it shouldn't be treated like a car where the prohibition only takes effect if you're drinking or intoxicated).
There may be a case made for loosening restrictions in France - I hear they've done it recently. The way to do that is not going to be by arguing that terrorists chose to attack it based on being unarmed or trying to establish a causation that we can't yet support with evidence. It should be on a platform of natural rights for self defense. I've heard they already have very limited concealed carry licenses. Perhaps they can make a push like Israel has to make those a little more accessible to the average person - although I imagine it'll take a good bit more training and bureaucratic hoops than most US states.
JW062 nailed it:
I think you pegged it John. Why is it that NYPD street cops consistently have more misses and collateral hits than lead-on-target? It's because they don't practice much.
Conversely, very few SWAT team members miss, because they practice alot.
I expect the same corollary applies for CCW / CHL holders as well.
I think you pegged it John. Why is it that NYPD street cops consistently have more misses and collateral hits than lead-on-target? It's because they don't practice much.
Conversely, very few SWAT team members miss, because they practice alot.
I expect the same corollary applies for CCW / CHL holders as well.
As basic as that argument is... it will be -- and has been -- roundly ignored
in the continued rush to "common sense" gun control.
Last Night's Dem Debate EVEN IN LIGHT OF PARIS:
> CLINTON: "Since we last debated in Las Vegas, nearly 3,000 people have been
> killed by guns. Two hundred children have been killed. This is an emergency."
> She said that in the same period there have been 21 mass shootings,
> "including one last weekend in Des Moines where three were murdered."
THE FACTS: The claim appears to be unsupported on all counts....
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-11-14-23-51-34
This is a pure & simple religious catechism, folks.
"Basic Rights" argument ain't gonna cut it.
I understand the terrorists had fully automatic AK47's and bomb belts. These guys wanted to die and take as many unarmed people with them as possible. I don't know what my chances would be, with my 2" snubbie, against a full auto battle rifle, but they would be a darn sight better than being unarmed, as were the victims of this attack. The only option gun banners leave us, is that we have to get close enough to physically subdue the terrorist. As trench warfare proved, there will be piles of dead people in front of the machine guns. A guy with a machine gun is going to mow down anyone moving towards him.
It will be interesting to find out how these guys smuggled these arms into France, regardless, it will just intensify the demands of those irrational gun banners who believe that helpless people are safer than armed citizens.
It will be interesting to find out how these guys smuggled these arms into France, regardless, it will just intensify the demands of those irrational gun banners who believe that helpless people are safer than armed citizens.
dakota.potts
New member
There are already some articles going around claiming that the armament was likely acquired from Eastern Europe where much of it is left over from the Balkan War and where police agencies in those countries have a hard time enforcing their arms regulations and stopping the flow from country to country. I don't know how much of that is truth though. I know there are a significant amount of rifles from those countries, and many people in the US buy them as parts kits today.
I'm going out on a limb, but everyone contributing to the thread are correct in certain ways.
Maybe one guy could change the outcome, chances are low, but still a chance that most of us want.
Many officers are not "gun guys". They do whatever training that the budget allows and that's it. No spending their own time or money at the range.
Same goes for soldiers, even less practice than police in many cases.
I'm going to hazard a guess and say that many of the contributors to this thread have fired thousands of rounds in target practice from each of their firearms... At least the average firearm.
I suspect that the Paris concert hall event would also be difficult for many of us here to deal with.
I would also suspect that even the strictest of gun control measures would NOT keep terrorists from obtaining guns.
One thing we all can agree with, is that no civilian with a gun equals no civilian being able to shoot back.
Maybe one guy could change the outcome, chances are low, but still a chance that most of us want.
Many officers are not "gun guys". They do whatever training that the budget allows and that's it. No spending their own time or money at the range.
Same goes for soldiers, even less practice than police in many cases.
I'm going to hazard a guess and say that many of the contributors to this thread have fired thousands of rounds in target practice from each of their firearms... At least the average firearm.
I suspect that the Paris concert hall event would also be difficult for many of us here to deal with.
I would also suspect that even the strictest of gun control measures would NOT keep terrorists from obtaining guns.
One thing we all can agree with, is that no civilian with a gun equals no civilian being able to shoot back.
- Status