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

Status
Not open for further replies.
A couple CCW holders sitting in a stadium looking at a couple Muslims with
AK47's fully auto is not going to put a dent in what is coming down the pike.

A few 9mm pistols with civilians firing off rounds will only cause more
problems. Collateral damage in that one innocent person is hit exchanging
fire will "fan the flames" of anti-gun politicians like Obama.

The way to clean this up is to take the one big city that ISIS controls in
Iraq, with 50,000 savages and drop the "big one." Gasp all you like but
eventually that is the beginning of a cure for this global cancer.

If that isn't in your heart then start by destroying the oil fields, dams and
hydro-plants. roads, bridges, hospitals, schools and any means to stop them from eating.

This isn't a hand-gun issue.
 
I don't see sitting in a restaurant like an old west gunslinger either.
Click to expand...

Wow..talk about totally missing the point. You can chose to walk around with your head buried in your phone or newspaper. But, terriorist threats aside thats not a good defensive posture, no matter where you are.
 
A couple CCW holders sitting in a stadium looking at a couple Muslims with
AK47's fully auto is not going to put a dent in what is coming down the pike.

A few 9mm pistols with civilians firing off rounds will only cause more
problems. Collateral damage in that one innocent person is hit exchanging
fire will "fan the flames" of anti-gun politicians like Obama.
Click to expand...

So what good are you guns if you can't use them because you fear collateral damage. Might as well never have one as in any conceivable SD usage there is a chance of shooting an innocent. You have talked yourself out of carrying a gun.

Also, what is coming down the pike as compared to saving lives where you are now?

These positions are flat out nonsensical. Also, if the untrained person is the risk, maybe folks should get off talking about which gun shoots best and which ammo is a man stopper - and learn how to use the guns they have.
 
In The spirit of the thread:

No armed civilians present in an event such as this, means that no one can shoot at the terrorists.
To me the outcome if armed civilians were there depends on level of training and experience. And some factors out of the shooters control.

Gun control has no positive effect towards gun violence.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I know how you make sure they AREN'T there. It isn't about making sure someone is there in every situation, it is about getting a benefit, some additional coverage, at almost no cost to society. It doesn't have to be someone that is specifically a current competitive shooter either. It could be one who was in the past, someone who just shoots a lot on their own, someone who filled a military role that involved extensive firearms training, etc. etc.

As far as collateral damage, has anyone voicing concerns about that really thought it out? If we are ever in such a situation with an armed terrorist outfitted with a bomb, and I'm unarmed in your line of fire; don't think, don't pause, unload. Please. Even if you are carrying a subcompact. Even if you haven't put a round down the tube in a decade. The 6-33 rounds in your pistol pose far less danger to me than what the terrorist is carrying. I am quite certain my chances of escape are better with someone engaging them than if they can continue killing unchallenged at their leisure. This is especially true if I am close enough it is a clear concern I could be hit.

John Stuart Mill:
Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Glenn;
I agree with your post.
The problem is that once an unarmed civilian is caught in the cross-fire...
Well you know the media and democratic response.

I downloaded the pages and pages of requirements to get a CCW and
opted against it.
My reasoning is, having the CCW will only cause a lot of problems for me
when I get pulled over for a broken tail-light.

I haul my rifles and handguns to the local range often.
They are always within the law when transporting them.

I don't want the CCW.
I have no criminal history, even with the DMV for vehicle infractions.
Getting the permit to carry only puts me in data base that will make me
suspect.

I know it is a risk, but I'd rather carry without everyone on the planet knowing it.
 
A couple CCW holders sitting in a stadium looking at a couple Muslims with
AK47's fully auto is not going to put a dent in what is coming down the pike.

I don't agree. Taking one out with a 9mm to the head may disrupt the plan. Getting inside the OODA loop can completely throw them off.
Maybe you stop one. Maybe two. That's 1-2 less bad actors to commit their crimes. Maybe they take you out too, but better to go out on your feet than on your knees.

Whoever said that the moment-of-truth was going to fit into a neat pre-packaged scenario?
 
Getting the permit to carry only puts me in data base that will make me
suspect.

Concealed carrying without a permit probably makes you a criminal.
 
Latest death toll in Paris, France:
0 armed civilians
Click to expand...
That doesn't hold up well as an argument, though.

As Glenn pointed out, we don't know that armed civilians could have made a difference. Even in carry-friendly states, concerts and similar venues are often off limits.

Second, France is a different culture. There are simply too many differences between theirs and ours for us to point at one single factor and say, "that would have made things different."

Third, even if they had armed civilians, what would the concentration be? Chances are, few if any would be present at the moment a motivated terrorist strikes. Zapping someone with an automatic rifle across a packed concert hall while the crowd is panicking? I'm pretty well trained, and I don't like those odds.

It simply doesn't do to use the French tragedy to push our cause. It makes us look callous and manipulative to anyone who doesn't already agree with us.
 
I may be wrong, but I think one civilian wounded or killed by a stray round from a CCW response found among perhaps dozens of civilians wounded or killed by terrorists is a perfectly acceptable outcome in lieu of failure to respond at all. The idiocy of anyone making an issue out of that would be clear to anyone other than fellow idiots. At least in the sane world I like to think still exists.
 
Way off base

STEINER stated:
A couple CCW holders sitting in a stadium looking at a couple Muslims with
AK47's fully auto is not going to put a dent in what is coming down the pike.

...

The way to clean this up is to take the one big city that ISIS controls in
Iraq, with 50,000 savages and drop the "big one."
...
Click to expand...

I lived and worked over there, spoke the language, and tried to understand the culture and psyche. A few things to go research:

1) Many of "the savages" (your term) really don't care if they die, particularly if they think it's part of their jihad. Many welcome it. (Several of the 911 hijackers brought their wedding suits to meet their 72 virgins in that light.) As such, if you don't understand that aspect, then you're less likely to be successful in dealing with them.

2) If you've every had a bullet whiz past you, you'll reflexively take notice and likely duck and cover. So will a "savage". You may draw fire, but you may also get a lucky shot and drop the guy.

3) You drop "the big one" on them, and we'll likely find reciprocity in due course. There are multiple states in the region that have nukes, and several more pursuing them, or have, and a few non-state actors with the ability. The concern is not all of the nuclear states have positive control on all critical weapons components. Not to mention the Russians still can't account for enough HEU to build 20-40 nuclear weapons.

Finally to not getting a ticket because of a broken tail light, cops know that CHL'ers passed a pretty good background check. Most I worked with at a large Texas police agency gave them a break on peccadilloes.
 
I agree with Tom, plus even in the good ole USA, the concentration of ccw holders would be small... And to top it off, I'd guess that most people attending these events would not carry if it meant that they couldn't get into their favorite concert or sporting event....
Most of us wouldn't even go into Buffalo Wild Wings because if their no-gun sign.
Who's willing to try and slip past the security check in order to carry.
 
CAUSE?

Tom Servo wrote:
.....
It simply doesn't do to use the French tragedy to push our cause. It makes us look callous and manipulative to anyone who doesn't already agree with us.
Click to expand...

Our cause?

Seems to me we should be thinking of their cause - Cause of Death!

And solutions rather than what someone thinks that:
"doesn't already agree with us"!
 
hird, even if they had armed civilians, what would the concentration be? Chances are, few if any would be present at the moment a motivated terrorist strikes.
Click to expand...
I believe Ohio is getting close to 500,000 CHL holders. It is hard to know how many actually carry, but in my experience it is about 10% of license holders who carry all the time. So, lets say .5% of Ohioans have a CHL and carry all the time. Then there are a few who don't have a CHL and still carry all the time.

In a crowd of 1500 that works out to approximately 7, maybe ten armed civilians. Probably 3-5 times that many trained well enough to pick up what someone else drops.

There is also estimated about one police officer per 300 people in the US. That would predict another 5 officers in attendance. Plus probably a couple retired officers. I don't think I have ever been to an event in the US without an armed uniformed police/security presence. So, even without CCWs there would almost certainly be some armed presence in the US at a large event like a concert.
I'd still prefer 15-25 armed people than ten to fifteen, and at a smaller venue I'd like to increase my chances ANY law abiding citizen is carrying.
 
Latest death toll in Paris, France:
0 armed civilians

That doesn't hold up well as an argument, though.

As Glenn pointed out, we don't know that armed civilians could have made a difference.
Click to expand...

It may not hold up as an argument, but it makes a lovely sound bite, and is as factual as anything the anti's put out, if not more so. :)

I may be nit-picking, but armed civilians ABSOLUTELY would have made a difference. What we do not, and cannot know is if armed civilians would have made enough of a difference to change the outcome.

And the reason we cannot know that is NOT because of what has, or has not happened in other places at other times, but because there were no armed civilians present at THIS time and place(s).

The attitude that since others have failed (ignoring circumstances were others did succeed), you won't win, you can't win, you are going to die anyway, there is no point in resisting, that attitude is what sent millions of people to "camps" without resistance.

Personally, I never found "die if you must, but never fight back" to be an acceptable philosophy for those who truly wish to live.

No, I DON'T think the Paris massacre is something we should use to "push our agenda", it puts us on the same moral plane as the gun banners who use the blood of the innocent to push their agenda.

The only correct thing one can say is that if there had been armed people who fought back, things would have been different. We CANNOT know how different they would have been, only that it would have been different.
 
Steiner
A couple CCW holders sitting in a stadium looking at a couple Muslims with
AK47's fully auto is not going to put a dent in what is coming down the pike.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree.
I accept that if if I am confronted with several attackers in tac gear and using AKs I will be outgunned if I only have my ccw.

That said, a swift and determined response where none is expected has every chance of throwing the attackers off of their plan and allowing innocents to escape.

Any strong response becomes an X factor in the fog of war. They don't know if the armed citizen is an off duty police officer or maybe part of an ambush prepared by a counter-terror unit. What they don't know they have to think about; thinking takes time. Time allows the police to respond and innocent targets to escape.

Conversely, we know that the attack will proceed as planned if nothing whatsoever is done to resist the attack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top