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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Silly as it sounds, I'm with Doofus.

When you have to land your plane in an emergency, you have to completely write off the plane before you touch down. Your only concern is to get you and your passengers safely on the ground. The plane is nothing.

Same with resisting a mass attack. Write yourself off and resist. A field of fire will be interrupted while an attacker ducks and tries to locate you. You could disable his weapon, hit a magazine in his pouch, cripple him, or even kill him with just one lucky shot. His buddies will have to shift their field of fire to cover his area, leaving gaps in their own. Whatever the outcome, momentarily reducing the rate of fire, increasing the time for a reload, or altering the pattern of fire, it is going to allow innocents to escape or avoid being hit.
 
I think we can agree you would be better armed than not, but to suggest that the attack on Paris had anything to do with gun conrol is rubbish. PS A guy here was attacked by three terrorists two carrying AK/47s he shot one terrorist dead the others ran away.
 
Last edited:
Lots of opinions on both sides of this thing...

My personal opinion..I'd rather be armed than not..I believe i have a better chance armed, than unarmed.
 
Meanwhile I -- and others -- choose not to die like rabbits.
Click to expand...

And you are going to do exactly WHAT against three en with explosives and automatic rifles with your CCW? Please enlighten me.

When they are shooting at everyone from across the arena, are you going to be charging at them firing like John Wayne or are you going to get your butt out of there via the safest most direct route?
 
And you are going to do exactly WHAT against three en with explosives and automatic rifles with your CCW? Please enlighten me.

When they are shooting at everyone from across the arena, are you going to be charging at them firing like John Wayne or are you going to get your butt out of there via the safest most direct route?
Click to expand...

Humor me for a minute. :)

Let's say one of the terrorists steps into the crowd only 10 feet from you. You hear a loud bang, look over and see him pointing an AK47, squeezing the trigger for his next shot. You notice that he is wearing a vest packed with explosives. You draw your concealed handgun, and put a round right in his temple. He drops like a rock. Guess what? Not only did you save yourself from getting shot or blown to bits from his vest, you just saved the life of 40-50 or more people.

Sure, there could be ten other terrorists in the same stadium, with the same intent, but you just lowered the body count of innocents by 40-50, didn't you?
 
Originally posted by manta49
I think we can agree you would be better armed than not, but to suggest that the attack on Paris had anything to do with gun conrol is rubbish
Click to expand...

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. Any time a gun control measure is proposed, we're always told that it's for our own good to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals/terrorists/crazies/etc." Well, here we had a bunch of terrorists (which is really nothing more than a specific type of criminal) not only hurt and kill a lot of people, but do it with the very weapons the law was supposed to prevent them from getting. The attacks in Paris are a graphic, though tragic, example of how gun control fails to achieve its stated goal.

Originally posted by FITASC
Quote:
Meanwhile I -- and others -- choose not to die like rabbits.

And you are going to do exactly WHAT against three en with explosives and automatic rifles with your CCW? Please enlighten me.

When they are shooting at everyone from across the arena, are you going to be charging at them firing like John Wayne or are you going to get your butt out of there via the safest most direct route?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd certainly try to get away if I can. However, in a crowded stadium full of panicked people the chances that I'd be able to get away aren't all that good.

If I can't get away, however, I'm certainly not going to cower in fear waiting to be killed. Sure, maybe my chances with a CCW aren't great against an AK-47 wielding terrorist, but my chances with my fists and harsh language are even worse. Regardless of what, if anything, I'm armed with, I will, if backed into a corner, try to fight back. Maybe I'll get shot down or blown up trying and maybe by some miracle I'll survive, but I'm certainly not going to let some piece of excrement kill me without a fight.
 
from across the arena
Click to expand...
I wanted to point out the site with the most fatalities was the Bataclan Theatre which I have heard holds ~1500 people. There is no "across the arena." There would be some long pistol shots in there, especially with a small carry gun, but everything is WELL within pistol range. I am sure, due to its small size, this theatre had no armed security like Stade France; and, combined with few exits once there were gunman at three of them, that is a major reason the fatalities there were higher.

But for those of you uncomfortable with CCW, it turns out the unarmed response worked quite well:
[Redacted], from South Shields in England, threw himself on top of his girlfriend to protect her. They both survived after playing dead, while other people nearby were picked off by the gunmen.
Click to expand...
 
And you are going to do exactly WHAT against three en with explosives and automatic rifles with your CCW? Please enlighten me.

When they are shooting at everyone from across the arena, are you going to be charging at them firing like John Wayne or are you going to get your butt out of there via the safest most direct route?
Click to expand...

Let's say one of the terrorists steps into the crowd only 10 feet from you. You hear a loud bang, look over and see him pointing an AK47, squeezing the trigger for his next shot. You notice that he is wearing a vest packed with explosives.
Click to expand...

From the reports, it does not appear that folks in the theater (or elsewhere, except the stadium where one suicide bomber was identified before exploding his vest) knew the folks had explosives until they detonated themselves. So given what was known at the time, what would you do against three men with automatic rifles with your ccw?

People seem to think being automatic rifles no chance of fighting back, and that just isn't the case. That doesn't mean it would be a fair fight or that your chances were good, but that all depends on the situational context. For example, if you were on one of the upper two levels, then you could have had a decided advantage against the 3 gunman who were initially only on ground level. It should be pointed out that many of the folks managed to escape during periods of reload. During periods of reload is a perfect time to be engaging with your CCW against superior firepower because at that time, you are the one with superior firepower.

After the initial bursts, firing actually slowed considerably as gunman searched for targets, which also means opportunity for a CCW. If you had not escaped or successfully evaded by that time, then this time may have presented a good opportunity. Here is some video in the following link. Note that the second video is not pleasant.
http://clashdaily.com/2015/11/watch...eo-of-the-bataclan-massacre-in-paris-graphic/

Interesting insight...at least one was using a laser sight.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/11...-kept-kicking-leg-believed-he-was-dead-274727

It should be pointed out in other shootings that periods of reloading were when intended victims were sometimes able to get the upper hand and subdue shooters, as with Loughner.

People want to believe that the bigger weapon will win, but that just isn't necessarily the case.
 
I hope no one on TFL has been in such a position.

Conversely, I expect most CHL holders here would not "do nothing" in a similar situation.

I pray we never have to find out.
 
And you are going to do exactly WHAT against three en with explosives and automatic rifles with your CCW? Please enlighten me.
Click to expand...
I think we all understand that in a fight between multiple opponents armed with rifles, a person with a typical concealed carry pistol is at a distinct disadvantage. It's fairly likely that they will not emerge victorious and unscathed.

What many seem to be missing is that making a difference doesn't require emerging victorious and unscathed. In the theater, in particular, there were a handful of terrorists (3 or 4) controlling literally hundreds of people. Even a slight disruption could create the possibility of their losing control of the situation.

Maybe the CCW holder is killed fairly rapidly, but the time that the terrorists have to focus on him means that they must lift their focus off systematically shooting the rest of the hostages. That could allow additional persons to escape. It might offer an opportunity for a group of hostages to tackle them, or otherwise cause further disruption to their systematic killing.

Maybe it does none of those things, but even then the time focused on the person with the CCW is time that the terrorists can't spend methodically killing hostages before the police arrive. Even if the concealed carrier doesn't manage to kill or injure even one of the terrorists before being shot down, the time it takes them to deal with him means fewer innocent people will die before the police arrive.

The Russians have a saying: "The best is the enemy of good enough." Meaning that people often focus on an ideal outcome when, in reality, there is much productive that can be done without achieving an ideal outcome. In this case, the ideal outcome would be for the concealed carrier to kill all of the terrorists immediately and without being injured. The fact that it's unlikely that the ideal outcome could be achieved does not mean that nothing productive could be achieved.
 
I think most of us would make an attempt. you'd need to be quick. I'd imagine that one face not running away would be pretty conspicuous to a bad guy. Like I said earlier; your actions might inspire others to join the fight.
I think those that say that one person could make a difference have made compelling arguments and have convinced me to rethink my stand on the issue.
 
Conversely, I expect most CHL holders here would not "do nothing" in a similar situation.
Click to expand...

Well, let's think about who most CHL holders are. They are generic America. They bought guns to protect themselves and their loved ones and not to engage in heroic actions to save humanity. Fathers (like me) and mothers will be doing their best to get their loved ones out of the lines of fire and to safety. Friends will most be doing their best to shepherd their friends to safety. Most will only engage the attackers as a means of immediate self protection and will not simply engage due to random opportunity out of fear of drawing too much attention to themselves.

If they are able to get friends and loved ones to safety, they are not apt to try to re-enter the premises to hunt down the bad guys. First, it is obviously dangerous. Second, they are apt to be progressing against the fleeing crowd and so progress will be difficult.

If cornered, trying to hide in a 'safe' room (as many did quite successfully in various rooms of the Bataclan), the CHL will likely defend him/herself and those nearby simply as a result of being trapped and self protection immediately translates to protection of others who are in the same imminent peril.

So the CHL holders would be doing something. They would be taking care of loved ones and doing their best to not get shot themselves. That is the reality that you can expect. By and large, CHL holders are not hero types and should not expected to be hero types.
 
In another thread I wrote that my reason for carrying is exactly what DNS just described... Protect my family and/ or get me to my family, and I kinda got railed for saying that... But that is my true reason for carrying.
 
Notice that these attacks never occur in cities where large numbers of people carry guns? Accident?
Click to expand...

Is that why we never see attacks in places like Baghdad, Kabul, or Beirut, were many people walk around with select fire weapons?

Surprisingly in Syria, where lots of people have guns, there are terrorist attacks, must be the exception to the rule.
 
Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. The reality is that you don't know what you would do until you are actually in the situation.

I feel it is only a matter of time before it starts happening here.
 
I have read all the posts that state "A normal holder of CCW is carrying a small, ineffective pistol?"

What am I? Not normal? First off the bat, I carry every day, a Glock 19 4th gen 9mm pistol, 16 round capacity, TruGlow fiber optic sights, I have shot thousands of rounds through it. Oh, and a spare G17 magazine, more for malfunction purposes than needing the extra rounds (even though I have had no failures to feed/or fire) my job, protect my Wife, myself, period.

And have done this already, with no gunplay! I would if called upon use gunplay. On more than one occasion, I have survived situations, by having a pistol, but not actually had to shoot it.

Yes, and I know Police Officers who do not carry off duty! License holders, who do not carry? But I do, always!
 
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 went up Muslim terrorist with an M-9 Beretta and crappy ball ammo.

I'm still here. I wasn't carrying concealed, but drawing from an issued flap holster ain't exactly smooth.

Just saying.

As a concealed carrier, with my personal gun, quality ammunition, and hey, the advantage of not wearing a uniform with a flag on the sleeve, I'll take my chances. Especially if my girlfriend is with me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top