This is not a gun control issue. The individual right to carry may have some impact when facing a terrorist who is ready to die, but wiping out the source of them is the key. They could care less about specific God given rights. It is high time for us to forget about rules of engagement and let professionals deal with this.
Gun Control in France...obviously...not working
- Thread starter johnelmore
- Start date
- Status
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
The professionals can't be everywhere and anywhere coverage can POSSIBLY be increased at almost no cost, it should be. Even if it is partial and can only provide a slight delay.
The simple reality is every time anyone has taken this approach we have simply created more of them. ISIS is ten times the global threat the Taliban ever was. The Taliban itself is arguably now growing to a strength approaching its 2001 levels.
Even if every ISIS controlled city is flattened, the organization would gain innumerable anti-American/West recruits throughout the Western world due to that action.
I expect to see a lot more of this in the future. The only way I see it having a chance at coming to an end is if the ME countries form a broad coalition to knock it out. And, although they have the equipment and money to do it, they likely don't have the trained soldiers.
Last edited:
Colorado Redneck
New member
Two points
1. A couple days ago, there was a post stating that no military action would result from the Paris terrorist attack. That was wrong.
2. Living in Colorado, the Aurora theatre shooting was in the news a lot. When visiting Sierra Vista, AZ a few months after that tragedy, I was in a gun shop and one of the people asked where I am from--I was complaining about shortages of reloading supplies. When the people in there heard Colorado, there was a lot of conversation that ensued, about that theatre shooting. They mostly were saying that incident would have "turned into a free for all if it happened in Arizona." I pondered that, and it seems to me, a lot of us think when a shooter is spraying bullets around a crowded venue, the action is in a vacuum. Were there people fleeing for their lives? You damn right there were. So here stands a man with a gun that is going to take down a shooter at 50-200 feet across a crowded theater, with people running in front of him, people shoving him and pushing to get by him. Thinking that this is an easy shot to hit the attacker in the head (a target the size of a football) at 50 feet through poor light and hazy visibility with all that mayhem is fantasy. More likely it will result in a bullet from the "good guy" hitting people that are fleeing.
Years ago there was a documentary on TV about survival in tragic situations. One of the studies that was done, was to interview extensively people that had survived plane crashes. The one outstanding conclusion was, people that reacted instinctively to save themselves lived more often that people that froze or tried to help others. Instincts drive people to move to save themselves.
Concealed Carry does not make you a cop or a soldier. If a person is predisposed to fight with armed attackers in a public venue, they might--MIGHT-- attempt to neutralize the threat. Their chances of a successful encounter are slim. IMO
Again, my opinion, why this incident becomes a matter of political concern in our country is subjective speculation about what might have happened if people had guns in Paris.
1. A couple days ago, there was a post stating that no military action would result from the Paris terrorist attack. That was wrong.
2. Living in Colorado, the Aurora theatre shooting was in the news a lot. When visiting Sierra Vista, AZ a few months after that tragedy, I was in a gun shop and one of the people asked where I am from--I was complaining about shortages of reloading supplies. When the people in there heard Colorado, there was a lot of conversation that ensued, about that theatre shooting. They mostly were saying that incident would have "turned into a free for all if it happened in Arizona." I pondered that, and it seems to me, a lot of us think when a shooter is spraying bullets around a crowded venue, the action is in a vacuum. Were there people fleeing for their lives? You damn right there were. So here stands a man with a gun that is going to take down a shooter at 50-200 feet across a crowded theater, with people running in front of him, people shoving him and pushing to get by him. Thinking that this is an easy shot to hit the attacker in the head (a target the size of a football) at 50 feet through poor light and hazy visibility with all that mayhem is fantasy. More likely it will result in a bullet from the "good guy" hitting people that are fleeing.
Years ago there was a documentary on TV about survival in tragic situations. One of the studies that was done, was to interview extensively people that had survived plane crashes. The one outstanding conclusion was, people that reacted instinctively to save themselves lived more often that people that froze or tried to help others. Instincts drive people to move to save themselves.
Concealed Carry does not make you a cop or a soldier. If a person is predisposed to fight with armed attackers in a public venue, they might--MIGHT-- attempt to neutralize the threat. Their chances of a successful encounter are slim. IMO
Again, my opinion, why this incident becomes a matter of political concern in our country is subjective speculation about what might have happened if people had guns in Paris.
Carrying a fighting pistol, a hi capacity one, many of the same pistols that are issued to Police Officers, IE Pistols made by Glock/S&W/Sig etc, as a CCW person. Every day.
Having decent skill with this self-defense tool. Gives you a better chance of protecting you and yours, Wife/Children/Grand Children, than not having one.
Having been involved in violence, somewhere in your past life, should give you some semblance on how you might react.
Case in point, I once was dragged into a fight with 4 individuals, many years ago, I was 33 YOA. In our company was my 6'4" 185lb Brother in Law.
Who froze, my Wife shouting at him to "Help Mike" Did nothing to get him into the action. As it happened I did fine on my own.
Five years as a Bouncer in Clubs in Liverpool UK gives you some abilities in that area.
How would skills learned many years ago translate to gun play? I have no idea, I do know, any threat to my Wife, I do react, quickly, and violently.
Because I have done so. And I would hazard a guess that many of the Husbands/Grand Dads here would get stuck in also.
Having decent skill with this self-defense tool. Gives you a better chance of protecting you and yours, Wife/Children/Grand Children, than not having one.
Having been involved in violence, somewhere in your past life, should give you some semblance on how you might react.
Case in point, I once was dragged into a fight with 4 individuals, many years ago, I was 33 YOA. In our company was my 6'4" 185lb Brother in Law.
Who froze, my Wife shouting at him to "Help Mike" Did nothing to get him into the action. As it happened I did fine on my own.
Five years as a Bouncer in Clubs in Liverpool UK gives you some abilities in that area.
How would skills learned many years ago translate to gun play? I have no idea, I do know, any threat to my Wife, I do react, quickly, and violently.
Because I have done so. And I would hazard a guess that many of the Husbands/Grand Dads here would get stuck in also.
Well, the reaction of the one person that might be carrying in a concert is going be as varied as the answers here. The fear response can cause a person to fight back, a different scenario might cause the same person to flee. Either response is acceptable to me. If a person fights, flees or cowers down has absolutely nothing to do with the character of the person or victim.
I was a long time soldier; I know the importance of training. But not everyone is willing or able to become a police officer or pay for training. I don't think it's the responsibility of the civilian CCWer to save the day, or anyone outside of their family. I don't think because some people think the Paris attacks would be too much for them to handle would disqualify them for daily CCW.
What worries me somewhat is the fact that there's a market for CHL badges.
I do think that I could increase my chances if everything aligns just right. I also know the chaos that a small scale violent event has, so I can only imagine the chaos in a crowded theater. But one thing is for sure, I rarely go anywhere that I have to disarm before entering.
So, I think gun control didn't prevent this attack. I don't think that the lack of "gun control" would have changed the outcome either. At least in the US. This venue would have most likely been a gun free zone.
Those that choose to carry in a gun free zone are in many cases not doing so legally. I don't like to break the law, as most of here, so I stay out anyways.
I was a long time soldier; I know the importance of training. But not everyone is willing or able to become a police officer or pay for training. I don't think it's the responsibility of the civilian CCWer to save the day, or anyone outside of their family. I don't think because some people think the Paris attacks would be too much for them to handle would disqualify them for daily CCW.
What worries me somewhat is the fact that there's a market for CHL badges.
I do think that I could increase my chances if everything aligns just right. I also know the chaos that a small scale violent event has, so I can only imagine the chaos in a crowded theater. But one thing is for sure, I rarely go anywhere that I have to disarm before entering.
So, I think gun control didn't prevent this attack. I don't think that the lack of "gun control" would have changed the outcome either. At least in the US. This venue would have most likely been a gun free zone.
Those that choose to carry in a gun free zone are in many cases not doing so legally. I don't like to break the law, as most of here, so I stay out anyways.
Colorado Redneck
New member
OK. If one is realistic about the chances of gun fire hitting innocent people in an incident within a confined area with many people, would any of us be able to weigh the probabilities of taking down the "bad guys" against doing more damage by shooting?
One other thing that has mystified me---how do others packing heat that decide to start shooting discern who is who? Those guys wearing black hats are the bad guys?
Bottom line for me is, carry if you must, and if you shoot in that situation, rest assured that eventually any stray fire that hits untargeted people will come back and haunt you.
Disclaimer: I admit to not being "trained" nor do I have a CCW. So my opinion is merely my opinion. If that is a handy excuse to disagree, so be it.
One other thing that has mystified me---how do others packing heat that decide to start shooting discern who is who? Those guys wearing black hats are the bad guys?
Bottom line for me is, carry if you must, and if you shoot in that situation, rest assured that eventually any stray fire that hits untargeted people will come back and haunt you.
Disclaimer: I admit to not being "trained" nor do I have a CCW. So my opinion is merely my opinion. If that is a handy excuse to disagree, so be it.
Options against the New Age Terrorist:
- Hide (in Paris you & others die)
- Run (in Paris you & others die)
- Pray (in Paris you & others die)
- Surrender (in Paris you and others die)
- Fight w/o a weapon (in Paris you and others die)
- Fight w/ a weapon (in Paris you and many others may -- or may not -- die)
I vote for what's behind Curtain #6 -- whatever the chances
- Hide (in Paris you & others die)
- Run (in Paris you & others die)
- Pray (in Paris you & others die)
- Surrender (in Paris you and others die)
- Fight w/o a weapon (in Paris you and others die)
- Fight w/ a weapon (in Paris you and many others may -- or may not -- die)
I vote for what's behind Curtain #6 -- whatever the chances
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
'sit tight and wait for the government to save you'
Double Naught Spy
New member
Lack of preparation.
Poor mindset.
Defeatist attitude.
Lack of understanding that the vast majority of people did survive despite having "no options."
"If a person fights, flees or cowers down has absolutely nothing to do with the character of the person or victim."
And that is why the expectation that a crowd of unarmed people should rush the attacker in unison and subdue him is dangerously insane. Just as insane as expecting a crowd of armed people to turn-draw-fire on an attacker in unison without missing. And yet armed resistance is the only alternative to allowing him to operate unfettered until he is stopped or decides to stop.
"Options against the New Age Terrorist:
- Hide (in Paris you & others die)
- Run (in Paris you & others die)
- Pray (in Paris you & others die)
- Surrender (in Paris you and others die)
- Fight w/o a weapon (in Paris you and others die)
- Fight w/ a weapon (in Paris you and many others may -- or may not -- die)"
And subsets for w/ a weapon;
- Fight and kill terrorist
- Fight and kill terrorist and wound/kill bystanders
- Fight and kill bystanders
- Fight and kill terrorist and wounded/killed by bystanders
- Fight and killed by bystanders
The only way in which any of the latter four outcomes in which your actions lead to harm to yourself or others is unjustified, is in retrospect. Because at the time of action, both you and the bystanders are about to be killed. This is the whole principle underpinning individual defense of the self & others. Philosophy and scripture have nothing to do with it, and simply describe the means to reach desirable outcomes. Whatever consequences follow, they cannot be expected to be as severe as doing nothing to save yourself and others, and we have a system of laws to manage them.
Just as easily as your clear shot at the bad guy could be intersected by a running child before you can react, the same shot could also end the carnage heroically, or even end it with the child also killed. And the shooter will reap the consequences for any of these. The shooter will choose for himself whether he can make the shot (while much-maligned by anti's for not ending the shooting and validating our arguments against theirs, the gun-carrier in Tucson chose not to shoot, sparing a bystander). We can't control which of these outcomes will come to pass once defense is initiated, any more than we can control when defense is required.
The only thing we can control is whether to deny ourselves the means to stop an attacker; if we do we are forced to rely upon exceptional human pluck, luck, or mercy, and lots of it. If we do not, we must have faith in our faculties to select the best means, become proficient with them, and deploy them in accordance with our best judgment, as countless American citizens do, every day. They are literally countless; the vast majority of gun uses end peacefully with a rapid de-escalation of force and parting of the ways, that results in no police report.
"Lack of understanding that the vast majority of people did survive despite having "no options.""
They were no more or less lucky than people who weren't at the particular venue that day (which is why these attacks are so frightening to people). Their actions up to and beyond that point had little to do with changing the odds of their survival, and their surviving the attack was no more repeatable than being killed in it (which is why these attacks are so frightening to people). A gun has potential to change those odds at the individual level, which is why the prospect is seen as empowering to those in favor. A law sold as having the potential to prevent the attack appears to remove the need for these uncomfortable mortal calculations by scared voters, empowering those promoting the laws.
TCB
And that is why the expectation that a crowd of unarmed people should rush the attacker in unison and subdue him is dangerously insane. Just as insane as expecting a crowd of armed people to turn-draw-fire on an attacker in unison without missing. And yet armed resistance is the only alternative to allowing him to operate unfettered until he is stopped or decides to stop.
"Options against the New Age Terrorist:
- Hide (in Paris you & others die)
- Run (in Paris you & others die)
- Pray (in Paris you & others die)
- Surrender (in Paris you and others die)
- Fight w/o a weapon (in Paris you and others die)
- Fight w/ a weapon (in Paris you and many others may -- or may not -- die)"
And subsets for w/ a weapon;
- Fight and kill terrorist
- Fight and kill terrorist and wound/kill bystanders
- Fight and kill bystanders
- Fight and kill terrorist and wounded/killed by bystanders
- Fight and killed by bystanders
The only way in which any of the latter four outcomes in which your actions lead to harm to yourself or others is unjustified, is in retrospect. Because at the time of action, both you and the bystanders are about to be killed. This is the whole principle underpinning individual defense of the self & others. Philosophy and scripture have nothing to do with it, and simply describe the means to reach desirable outcomes. Whatever consequences follow, they cannot be expected to be as severe as doing nothing to save yourself and others, and we have a system of laws to manage them.
Just as easily as your clear shot at the bad guy could be intersected by a running child before you can react, the same shot could also end the carnage heroically, or even end it with the child also killed. And the shooter will reap the consequences for any of these. The shooter will choose for himself whether he can make the shot (while much-maligned by anti's for not ending the shooting and validating our arguments against theirs, the gun-carrier in Tucson chose not to shoot, sparing a bystander). We can't control which of these outcomes will come to pass once defense is initiated, any more than we can control when defense is required.
The only thing we can control is whether to deny ourselves the means to stop an attacker; if we do we are forced to rely upon exceptional human pluck, luck, or mercy, and lots of it. If we do not, we must have faith in our faculties to select the best means, become proficient with them, and deploy them in accordance with our best judgment, as countless American citizens do, every day. They are literally countless; the vast majority of gun uses end peacefully with a rapid de-escalation of force and parting of the ways, that results in no police report.
"Lack of understanding that the vast majority of people did survive despite having "no options.""
They were no more or less lucky than people who weren't at the particular venue that day (which is why these attacks are so frightening to people). Their actions up to and beyond that point had little to do with changing the odds of their survival, and their surviving the attack was no more repeatable than being killed in it (which is why these attacks are so frightening to people). A gun has potential to change those odds at the individual level, which is why the prospect is seen as empowering to those in favor. A law sold as having the potential to prevent the attack appears to remove the need for these uncomfortable mortal calculations by scared voters, empowering those promoting the laws.
TCB
Last edited:
Two situations where I would have no qualms about firing.
1. I can line up a shot where there's virtually no chance of hitting an innocent.
2. The situation is so bad that it's obvious to a reasonable observer that everyone present who can't get away will likely die if nothing happens to disrupt the bad guys' plans. That was the scenario in the Bataclan Theater.
If you can't tell who the bad guys are then there's no reason to shoot. That means there's no one doing anything obviously "bad" and therefore no justification for using deadly force.
If, on the other hand, there is a person killing obviously innocent people and not showing any signs of stopping, that is a clue that he is a bad guy and that if you can shoot him it might be a good idea to do so before he gets around to shooting you.
Especially if you had the chance to get training and decided it wasn't worth it.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If you watch the video of the shooter in http://www.cbsnews.com/news/watch-video-shows-moment-terrorist-opens-fire-on-paris-restaurant/
do you really think that you would be helpless with a firearm. Of course, running is optimal but when the shooter pauses or turns away - you might be able to have a shot?
If you think you couldn't even try to hit that guy, really need to rethink your gun carrying status.
If you went into that basement, would you be apriori unable to defend the stairs?
do you really think that you would be helpless with a firearm. Of course, running is optimal but when the shooter pauses or turns away - you might be able to have a shot?
If you think you couldn't even try to hit that guy, really need to rethink your gun carrying status.
If you went into that basement, would you be apriori unable to defend the stairs?
- Status