Gun Control in France...obviously...not working
- Thread starter johnelmore
- Start date
- Status
We can discuss endlessly if and how armed response could be effective, but aside from one fact, ALL factors are beyond our control, and depended on the actions of the people on the scene.
The one factory that can be controlled in advance is the legal presence of arms.
Now, not many people do go armed where they may go armed, but one thing is constant, where arms are prohibited the law abiding don't carry arms.
NO gun law can stop murderers, no LAW stops murderers. Its foolish to think otherwise.
Argue all you want whether having a gun in a situation like this would have made a difference, the point is moot, because the law ensured no one obeying the law had the option to find out.
The one factory that can be controlled in advance is the legal presence of arms.
Now, not many people do go armed where they may go armed, but one thing is constant, where arms are prohibited the law abiding don't carry arms.
NO gun law can stop murderers, no LAW stops murderers. Its foolish to think otherwise.
Argue all you want whether having a gun in a situation like this would have made a difference, the point is moot, because the law ensured no one obeying the law had the option to find out.
johnelmore
New member
Thats a good question. What are your chances with a .38 snubbie against an AK47? All it takes is one well aimed round to stop the attacker. Even a poorly aimed round that hits their arm or leg will slow them down.
Most people I know do not spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a pistol to let it collect dust. Most likely they have some knowledge and experience for a proper aim
Most people I know do not spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a pistol to let it collect dust. Most likely they have some knowledge and experience for a proper aim
As noted in another forum...
Question: What is the purpose of a handgun ?
ANSWER (so often cited): To gain time to get your rifle.
Corollary: What would be the purpose of a single hand gun against three battle-rifle wielding terrorists?
ANSWER: To get one of their rifles.
The game is now radically changed.
Question: What is the purpose of a handgun ?
ANSWER (so often cited): To gain time to get your rifle.
Corollary: What would be the purpose of a single hand gun against three battle-rifle wielding terrorists?
ANSWER: To get one of their rifles.
The game is now radically changed.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Patently false - More known mass shootings are stopped by unarmed citizens in the US than by CCW holders. More unarmed people survive mass shootings than are killed in them. The Bataclan concert hall was sold out that night, with over 1500 seats, plus the band, stage crew, and staff of the Bataclan concert hall. Less than 200 people were killed in all of the Paris attacks that night. No chance for survival? Really?
It is a decidedly defeatist mindset to consider yourself defenseless or with "no chance" simply because you don't have a gun.
Being armed certainly gives you better options for fighting back, no question, but it is lame and irresponsible to consider yourself defenseless, with no chance, just because you don't have a gun. Start looking at firearms and other dedicated weapons as an optional tools instead of necessary crutches. Then your perceived chances for survival improve dramatically to match reality.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If you look at the Westgate Mall attack in Kenya. You see on the videos the attackers strolling around unopposed. It is not hard to see how folks who were able to take some cover (as unarmed folks did) be able to engage them.
For example, the Tacoma Mall shooter was engaged but unfortunately the civilian was out of his depth (why you should train up). If the civilian had it together, the shooter would have been taken down.
DNS is correct that resistance without guns is possible. My quibble with his analysis is that the successful unarmed resistance is used to say we don't need firearms. The run, hide, flee videos are oriented to say that's the way and guns are just silly.
For example, the Tacoma Mall shooter was engaged but unfortunately the civilian was out of his depth (why you should train up). If the civilian had it together, the shooter would have been taken down.
DNS is correct that resistance without guns is possible. My quibble with his analysis is that the successful unarmed resistance is used to say we don't need firearms. The run, hide, flee videos are oriented to say that's the way and guns are just silly.
aarondhgraham
New member
g.willikers got it 99.99% correct
I think I fixed that last .01%.
I don't think I want to ever be absolutely helpless.
I might not be able to counter a full scale assault with my itty-bitty LCP,,,
But when they're wandering the crowd choosing who to shoot next,,,
I just might be able to pop a few rounds into one of the terrorists.
Beats the heck out of the cower and hide mentality preached today,,,
I'll be danged before I willingly let myself be killed for social correctness.
The people of the world (and especially us Americans) have been conditioned,,,
Fifty or more years of societal indoctrination saying let the authorities handle it.
That does no good for anyone,,,
Except for the authorities who want to maintain Civil Order.
That attitude does nothing but demand individual citizens be sacrificed,,,
To an unholy alter of social order and authoritarian control.
Humanity can not accept this without fighting back,,,
The fear of just making things worse is no longer a valid option.
Aarond
.
I think I fixed that last .01%.
I don't think I want to ever be absolutely helpless.
I might not be able to counter a full scale assault with my itty-bitty LCP,,,
But when they're wandering the crowd choosing who to shoot next,,,
I just might be able to pop a few rounds into one of the terrorists.
Beats the heck out of the cower and hide mentality preached today,,,
I'll be danged before I willingly let myself be killed for social correctness.
The people of the world (and especially us Americans) have been conditioned,,,
Fifty or more years of societal indoctrination saying let the authorities handle it.
That does no good for anyone,,,
Except for the authorities who want to maintain Civil Order.
That attitude does nothing but demand individual citizens be sacrificed,,,
To an unholy alter of social order and authoritarian control.
Humanity can not accept this without fighting back,,,
The fear of just making things worse is no longer a valid option.
Aarond
.
How many CCW holders are competitive shooters. ? I would bet plenty of them fire less than 100 rounds a year. And how do you get the ones that are to be in the right place at the right time.
So you would not be trying to hide, you would be atacking the terrorists armed or not.
Some people need a reality check.
Last edited:
As a CWP holder... I am grabbing my wife and getting the heck out of the fire zone. My CWP is there to protect my family and myself. I am not the police and I am not the military.
If the bad guy gets in the way of that flee to safety, then I am going to do my best to eliminate that threat.
I have a feeling that mass shooting in non gun free zones are not common in the USA bc the bad guy figures they will run into a good guy with a gun. So they use bombs and selective targets (churchs and schools).
So CWP does change the game, but doesn't eliminate the problem. All of that said...trained assailants with numerous firearms including full auto weapons are going to kill a lot of people even if CWP holders are there.
Prayers are with the victims and hopefully the world's leaders will figure out a way to solve this problem.
If the bad guy gets in the way of that flee to safety, then I am going to do my best to eliminate that threat.
I have a feeling that mass shooting in non gun free zones are not common in the USA bc the bad guy figures they will run into a good guy with a gun. So they use bombs and selective targets (churchs and schools).
So CWP does change the game, but doesn't eliminate the problem. All of that said...trained assailants with numerous firearms including full auto weapons are going to kill a lot of people even if CWP holders are there.
Prayers are with the victims and hopefully the world's leaders will figure out a way to solve this problem.
johnelmore
New member
If you dont know what a pistol can do let me tell you...you have not handled a pistol. A pistol is a very deadly instrument and in the right hands it can easily change the tide of a situation. The rifle has to be swung around and is a relatively slow tool to use when compared to the pistol. You can put a round on target quick and move on to the next target with the pistol.
Here is a video showing what a 13 year old girl can do with both a rifle and a pistol.
https://youtu.be/wZE-EDGw2vo
This video should be inspiring of what can be done with a little practice. A firearm is not a complex contraption. Its a simple tool that should be respected. That pistol is just as deadly as the rifle.
Another example is Goetz. He was able to stop his tatgets with a 5 round pistol. A controversial figure no doubt, but a fine example of why you should respect that snubbie. Dont think you cant stop a small group with it. Bet you the girl could probably stop a small group with the snubbie and probably have time to reload too. Quite obviously, you dont want to be on the receiving end of the snubbie.
Here is a video showing what a 13 year old girl can do with both a rifle and a pistol.
https://youtu.be/wZE-EDGw2vo
This video should be inspiring of what can be done with a little practice. A firearm is not a complex contraption. Its a simple tool that should be respected. That pistol is just as deadly as the rifle.
Another example is Goetz. He was able to stop his tatgets with a 5 round pistol. A controversial figure no doubt, but a fine example of why you should respect that snubbie. Dont think you cant stop a small group with it. Bet you the girl could probably stop a small group with the snubbie and probably have time to reload too. Quite obviously, you dont want to be on the receiving end of the snubbie.
Double Naught Spy
New member
There is really nothing to quibble about in that aspect of the analysis. The issue isn't with the analysis, but the facts that show that there are indeed other ways of surviving these encounters.
However, our goals as gun owners should not be to make the arguments that guns are the only solution survival, but to educate others into understand that survival chances and actual survival amounts usually improve when guns are used by defenders.
No one method is going to be perfect or handle all situations, hence the need for options and optional abilities. Maybe then we can do without such silliness as suggesting things like sending in competitive shooters to quell terrorist attacks, as if all that was needed was a person accustomed to shooting well in a game on a square range, experiencing no actual threats, yet being protected by a RSO in case the shooter commits a rules violation or handles a gun in an unsafe manner.
When we visited Paris summer before last, there were already armed soldiers patrolling around the major tourist sites like the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre. I don't imagine they patrolled restaurants and concerts, however. My daughter and son-in-law were in Paris two months ago, too. Paris is the favorite of all cities I have visited, followed by Baltimore and San Francisco. No, there's nothing logical about it.
I recall seeing only two policemen in France the whole time we were there. Don't remember seeing any in Germany except at the airport. Don't see many here in this country either as a rule, for that matter.
I recall seeing only two policemen in France the whole time we were there. Don't remember seeing any in Germany except at the airport. Don't see many here in this country either as a rule, for that matter.
And THIS is why i go thru the (sometimes) PITA to carry a full size fighting pistol and a spare mag EVERYTIME i leave the house.
At one point i took an oath to defend this country from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.
NOTHING has relieved me of that duty. As i write this im sitting having lunch in a large chain restaurant. My back is to a wall and im facing the door. Anyone entering with the intent to harm those around me is in for a rough time
That is the basis for defense against a group of armed terrorists or a lone gunman coming in to kill his ex-wife at her place of work.
I have spent the better part of the last 10 years being the Sheepdog, guarding Sheep in some of the worst carp holes in the world. Deterrence WORKS.
I think, perhaps, we are not quite focusing on the most important factors here. First and foremost, I think we can all agree that France's restrictive gun laws (though not actually the most restrictive in Europe) are viewed as a goal to work towards, or at least a step along the way, for many gun control advocates in the U.S. and elsewhere. Certainly, fully automatic weapons are strictly forbidden to private ownership in France, so why then were these terrorists able to acquire firearms which were out-and-out banned? It wasn't because of any lack of background check or "gun show loophole" because no one outside of the police or military can legally buy, sell, or posses a full-auto AK-47 in France.
It seems to me that these murderous wretches were able to get the weapons they wanted in spite of the laws that were supposed to prevent this. So, it seems to me that, if someone intent on doing evil to others wants a gun, bomb, or any other instrument with which to perpetrate said evil badly enough and has sufficient time/money/resources, a law saying that he can't have it is pretty worthless.
As to whether or not CCW would have made a difference in these terror attacks, we'll never really know. Personally, I think it would have depended on a lot of different circumstances. Would one person with a pocket pistol have made a significant difference? Probably not. However, if 10 people had been armed and willing to fight (less than 1% of those in attendance) it might have been very different. Of course, if 10 or more people had been unarmed but willing to fight it may have been very different too.
Honestly, denying law abiding people the most effective way to defend themselves, while certainly reprehensible, isn't the worst thing about strict gun control laws IMHO. The worst and most insidious aspect of strict gun control is that, over time, it seems to fade, if not remove, the willingness of those subjected to it to fight back in defense of themselves and their loved ones. When people who have been taught their whole lives that the police/military/government/etc. will protect them find themselves attacked with none of those so-called protectors around, they all too-often wind up cowering in fear at the mercy of their attacker with not so much as the notion to fight back.
Honestly, I think that the willingness to fight back is probably much more important than what, if anything, one is armed with. Look at the foiled terrorist attack on the French train in August: three completely unarmed men subdued an attacker armed with an AK-47 and saved scores of other passengers. However, once people have the willingness to fight back, it doesn't usually take long for them to start demanding the most effective tools with which to do so. While I would fight back against an AK-47 wielding terrorist with my bare hands if I had to, I'd much rather do it with a firearm if possible.
It seems to me that these murderous wretches were able to get the weapons they wanted in spite of the laws that were supposed to prevent this. So, it seems to me that, if someone intent on doing evil to others wants a gun, bomb, or any other instrument with which to perpetrate said evil badly enough and has sufficient time/money/resources, a law saying that he can't have it is pretty worthless.
As to whether or not CCW would have made a difference in these terror attacks, we'll never really know. Personally, I think it would have depended on a lot of different circumstances. Would one person with a pocket pistol have made a significant difference? Probably not. However, if 10 people had been armed and willing to fight (less than 1% of those in attendance) it might have been very different. Of course, if 10 or more people had been unarmed but willing to fight it may have been very different too.
Honestly, denying law abiding people the most effective way to defend themselves, while certainly reprehensible, isn't the worst thing about strict gun control laws IMHO. The worst and most insidious aspect of strict gun control is that, over time, it seems to fade, if not remove, the willingness of those subjected to it to fight back in defense of themselves and their loved ones. When people who have been taught their whole lives that the police/military/government/etc. will protect them find themselves attacked with none of those so-called protectors around, they all too-often wind up cowering in fear at the mercy of their attacker with not so much as the notion to fight back.
Honestly, I think that the willingness to fight back is probably much more important than what, if anything, one is armed with. Look at the foiled terrorist attack on the French train in August: three completely unarmed men subdued an attacker armed with an AK-47 and saved scores of other passengers. However, once people have the willingness to fight back, it doesn't usually take long for them to start demanding the most effective tools with which to do so. While I would fight back against an AK-47 wielding terrorist with my bare hands if I had to, I'd much rather do it with a firearm if possible.
While I have reservations about the CCWer being successful in an event such as Paris in a large crowded venue. I do agree carrying a full sized pistol is the way to go.... I carry one everywhere. It is truly a pain sometimes. I don't see sitting in a restaurant like an old west gunslinger either. I do avoid places that are likely to have trouble break out. I don't go to seedy bars. I don't go into high crime areas if I can help it. I don't go to the ATM by the liquor store at 1:30 am. I don't go to blockbuster movies opening week. I don't go to concerts. I don't like sports, so stadiums aren't in my rotation. I've outgrown amusement parks.
So many factors are involved in a crowded panicking concert hall to guarantee success in dealing with terrorists. For one, you're going to gain the attention of the shooters pretty quick. You now hold a gun that may be valuable to potential victims. You could be mistaken for a terrorist and dealt with by another hero. You could be a victim before you had a chance to act. You panic. You freeze. You're too freaked out to shoot accurately. You empty your mag in vain. You drop your magazine. You're gun jams. You eject your mag accidentally.
You don't know how fear will cause you to behave... Most people have negative responses, no shame in it... Just happens.
If you've never shot at another living creature, I suggest you have a buddy take you hunting, see how that feels, then multiply that tenfold.
I'm not talking too experienced soldiers and LEO.
So many factors are involved in a crowded panicking concert hall to guarantee success in dealing with terrorists. For one, you're going to gain the attention of the shooters pretty quick. You now hold a gun that may be valuable to potential victims. You could be mistaken for a terrorist and dealt with by another hero. You could be a victim before you had a chance to act. You panic. You freeze. You're too freaked out to shoot accurately. You empty your mag in vain. You drop your magazine. You're gun jams. You eject your mag accidentally.
You don't know how fear will cause you to behave... Most people have negative responses, no shame in it... Just happens.
If you've never shot at another living creature, I suggest you have a buddy take you hunting, see how that feels, then multiply that tenfold.
I'm not talking too experienced soldiers and LEO.
- Status