My Answer

Status
Not open for further replies.
I tend to disagree, mainly because shooting a handgun does not require an advanced degree in "triggernometry." After all, from what I gather from reading this forum, most policemen are not qualified to carry a weapon. But there are issues.

Shooting a handgun and hitting the target under ordinary, range-type conditions is one thing. Everything carries over to a live-fire situation, only there are all sorts of factors that are not present in a range-shooting session, not the least of which is that no one is shooting back. Naturally those who host training schools will say you need to be well trained, and typically only in their techniques. That's is understandable and it's not bad, either. But it also seems like for some people, going through courses and "training" is the end. They won't even have time to go to concerts. Too noisy, no doubt.

The critical issue on which everything hands is reaction. Not reaction time, just simply reacting--the right way, whatever that might be in the split second you have to decide. On the other hand, if you go about armed, it should be assumed that you have made up your mind about what to do. One probably should even if you don't go armed.

I never got in fights on the playground when I was in grade school but I did at home. I was only taken to the hospital twice, near as I recall, although I have more scars than that. At the time a frontal attack resulting in two boys rolling around in the dirt pounding each other was what usually happened. I've become more civilized since then and I don't think I'd do that now. I've even over the legal age for the militia, according to state law.
 
This thread is morphing into the other thread.
Click to expand...

Yes. What was the point of this thread to begin with?

The only thing I can think of that an "assault rifle" is good for is to deter a charging mob.
 
To 44AMP, there was another instance of a Japanese sub firing at Ft. Stevens with its deck gun during WWII. Ft. Stevens was located in Oregon at the mouth of the Columbia. The sub fired 17 rounds but caused almost no damage. The post commander would not permit return fire for fear of disclosing the location of their guns.

New coastal forts were actually built during WWII.
 
We have home-grown terrorists who like to blow up federal buildings and burn down churches.
Click to expand...

No, we really don't. The "federal building" - that incident took place in 1995, 20 years ago, and really never proved to be a coordinated terrorist attack. In any event, those idiots are long gone and never to be heard from again. And, as for the church burnings, those are hate crimes, not terrorism. Although they are despicable acts, there is a difference.

Also, I'm not sure how I'd fight off a terrorist attack with a handgun that I happen to be carrying. Especially if someone has a bomb strapped to their torso. Using a gun would be about as effective as shooting mosquitoes with a 30 carbine.
 
"Even if there were armed people in the attacks in Paris, it is more likely they will do more harm than good."

There were nearly 100 killed in the theater shown above. I doubt very, very much if a citizen's armed response would have killed anything like 100, or 10, or perhaps even 1 other innocents. Anyone close enough to the killers to be struck by return fire is already a target of the killers. To say that armed response by a civilian to such an attack does more harm than good is patently ridiculous.

Just carry the logic forward a little bit to a scenario we already endure : crime against citizens. If your opinion has any factual basis at all, then turn in your CCW permit, it is doing more harm than good. Show me the hundreds of innocent bystanders shot by CCW response to crime, will you? You can't.

It just doesn't hold water.
 
New coastal forts were actually built during WWII.
Click to expand...


Iffin my memory serves me correctly, there was a pillbox/machine gun bunker built overlooking the Hoover Dam back in WWII and manned 24/7 because of the fear of an attack on the Penstocks there.

....I think we should change the title of this thread.:D
 
No offense, Mr. Skans, but I think you're defining a problem out of existence. If you're inside a building that is blown up on purpose, what's the difference if it's a coordinated terrorist attack, a hate crime or a deranged individual upset with the existing social order?
 
Kilimanjaro,
I do agree with you that a ccw wouldn't probably do any more harm. I am waffling about the net effectiveness of a ccw holder entered into the fray; there's too many variables to predict anything. There's one exception: no armed citizens present absolutely means no armed response from a civilian.

But I'm more convinced than anything that a licensed CCWer being present at such a venue during and attack is highly unlikely, probably improbable.
 
If you're inside a building that is blown up on purpose, what's the difference if it's a coordinated terrorist attack, a hate crime or a deranged individual upset with the existing social order?
Click to expand...

While the results (death and carnage) appear to be the same, a coordinated terrorist attack like the one in Paris is really an out-right act of war conducted by foreign nationals. Burning churches or home-grown nutters blowing up buildings is an internal problem where the perpetrators (and anyone involved) need to be rounded up, tried and executed or imprisoned. Anyone who thinks this isn't a war where the attackers fully intend on achieving mass annihilation of all western civilization has their head buried in the sand.

This kind of act of war within the largest city in a sovereign nation is deserving of an all out war of annihilation against the countries in which these warlords operate from. We used to understand what that meant in the 1940's. Destruction on a scale where no man, woman or child is spared - that's how world wars are stopped then. That's the only way this one will eventually be stopped in the future.
 
Last edited:
"While the results (death and carnage) appear to be the same, a coordinated terrorist attack like the one in Paris is really an out-right act of war conducted by foreign nationals"
But many of them weren't foreign nationals...they were from EU states.

"Burning churches or home-grown nutters blowing up buildings is an internal problem where the perpetrators (and anyone involved) need to be rounded up, tried and executed or imprisoned."
And the proper response toward a foreign foe is no different, other than the protections afforded citizens being absent (and the practical consequences of the attendant human abuse lesser). Authorities love to blur them some lines, though.

"This kind of act of war within the largest city in a sovereign nation is deserving of an all out war of annihilation against the countries in which these warlords operate from."
So, France should kick off WWIII by invading Germany or Belgium, first? Or go for the gusto by attacking Russian soldiers protecting Assad in Syria and nuking Moscow to prevent reprisal? It's a bit late for them to fight the 'war' on foreign soil at this point; we all need to accept that fact. If you aren't only counting light-skinned people who think they still run the place, 'France' isn't even certain if it wants to remain a democracy anymore.

"That's the only way this one will eventually be stopped in the future."
Or, they could simply shut their doors, deal with the enemy within, and keep the doors shut for good this time. The process probably wouldn't take nearly as long as everyone expects, either.

"I liked the premise of the OP. It's a shame his thread got jacked. Started off really good."
Really? 'This here's my terrorist head-blastin' gun?' We have like a million show and tell threads already (I think one's a sticky, even), more than a few of this exact flavor. Besides, the G3 (with a CETME mag?) was specifically found wanting against Islamist terrorists during the 1972 Summer Olympics ;)
 
"there's too many variables to predict anything. There's one exception: no armed citizens present absolutely means no armed response from a civilian"

This needs to be tattooed on some people's foreheads, to my way of thinking. Any cursory analysis shows there are too many variables. Heck, one shooting site got lucky and the guy's gun jammed; no outside interference required. But the data points we do have for the situation have one thing in common; there was no one present with an armed response when the attack began, and they only ended after one arrived (I'm not aware of any of the bombers blowing himself up after wiping his feet on the way out).

So you can't say a CCW would have no effect. There is literally no evidence to support that, here, where it matters. You also can't say one would have made the difference, or even made things worse. All pure supposition. But an armed response can't happen where there are no defenders with guns, and as such, violent force cannot be countered. Yet countering violent force is exactly what is clearly necessary in these cases (somehow, few who decry CCW'ers tend to see measures like bullet proof doors, desks, or backpacks as equally insane, even though the same attempt to counter force drives their promotion)

Expecting a crowd of panicked animals to go against every instinct and bum-rush the guy with an automatic rifle is more far-fetched than a Texas policeman shooting a gunman down at 100yds one-handed with two scared horses' reigns in the other. And yet the latter happened (and to a guy shooting an AK into a police station who could have turned to shoot him at any moment, no less).

There have also been times when a mob has taken down a gunman when his weapon jams or runs empty, but many, many, many more where this never happens, and the carnage only ends once he is shot dead by responders or his own hand. Particularly when there are multiple gunman to cover each other. When there is no alternative but to fight back or die, there is no better tool than a firearm.

TCB
 
This has morphed into the debate in the French gun control thread.

No reason to replay the I'm a gun owner but I'm useless in an emergency vs. I think I might be able to help thread. Not that I'm biased towards one side.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top