Shootings and explosions in Paris.

[Tornado]

Yeah because everyone's a real crack shot in a small, crowded, dark concert hall with hundreds of people screaming and panicking. The most unsettling part of this whole "good guy with a gun" schtick after every mass killing is the subtext, "if I had been there with my gun, I would have stopped this".

Well, maybe not RC45, and probably not French John McClane, but certainly Mark Wahlberg.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If they weren't properly trained on how to open fire in a crowded, dark room that's probably hazy, then there is a really good chance that an innocent bystander would have been hit.

I really think pro-arm-the-world folks forget that shooting a gun accurately isn't exactly easy, especially under extreme conditions. Ever trained people can have a difficult time in the heat of the moment.

Hundreds of innocent bystanders did get hit.

 

[Joey D]

Hundreds of innocent bystanders did get hit.

My point is, the likelihood of someone actually being able to get a bead on the correct target under those conditions is pretty low and they more than likely would have shot someone who was trying to get away from the attackers, if they would have hit anything at all.

Shooting a gun accurately isn't easy, especially when your target is one person around a hundred screaming people who are running around.

 

[Carlos]

I suspect that very many people in places like - as a random example - Ferguson might have something to say about that.

Not sure you can compare when guns are illegal here. And cops over here can live from that salary so I assume they wouldn't get as stressed as they might be over there. I read that most officers have two jobs, working in the security too. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[UkHardcore23]

http://news.stv.tv/east-central/133...tacked-by-mob-of-15-citing-revenge-for-paris/

Living in Glasgow we have a plane of 350 Syrain refugee's touching down tomorrow or possibly Wednesday, All over Facebook is people citing attacks on these people and asking natives to not let these people settle.

While that's pretty abhorrent the problem alot of us Scots see is the place is a complete ****ehole, Glasgow is the most violent place in the UK and was the murder capital of Western Europe for a very long time until a few years ago and it also has a much higher unemployed average than anywhere else. If the Scottish government and UK government cannot sort out our own problems how the hell can we sort out the refugee problems? All it's going to lead to is more violent attacks and racism.

 

[Johnnypenso]

My point is, the likelihood of someone actually being able to get a bead on the correct target under those conditions is pretty low and they more than likely would have shot someone who was trying to get away from the attackers, if they would have hit anything at all.

Shooting a gun accurately isn't easy, especially when your target is one person around a hundred screaming people who are running around.

Or they might have scared the attackers into cover for just a few moments and allowed some more people to escape. My point is that hundreds of people were killed or injured anyway and you're assuming the worst possible outcome. There are other potential outcomes in addition to an untrained person randomly shooting their weapon around and killing innocent bystanders.

 

[Rage Racer]

Now imagine what the outcome would have been if even 1 civilian had been armed and able to defend themselves - If it could have saved even 1 life it would have been worth it for civilians in France to easily legally carry weapons.

Even if 1 civilian was armed, I seriously doubt that it could help him.
To try confronting multiple thugs armed with assault rifles while being alone with a pistol is a bad idea. Especially if you're not a former/acting Special Force officer or military serviceman. And you don't expect them to attack, remember. If you couldn't react - you're already lying down among other bodies (no matter if you have a gun or not). If you could - it's a better idea to run away. And it's already said that you risk to injure somebody else.

I understand some reasons why people want guns legal, but a professional terrorist act (and I mean "professional" - the attack on Paris was undoubtely well planned and prepared) is NOT what a personal firearm can protect you from, IMO.

 

[Touring Mars]

This is all a bit of a moot point anyway - even if gun laws in France were much more liberal, the Bataclan theatre could still (rightly) insist that no guns are allowed on the premises, perhaps with the exception of security personnel. But what happens when a brigade of suicide bombers turns up, murders the security guards and then runs amok in the theatre?

Gun laws are really not relevant to this discussion, plus we have a thread for it already anyway... the real question is how to stop (or at least minimize the instances of) things like this happening and addressing the reasons why people want to do it. I fear that this is a nigh on impossible task because there are simply so many sick people out there who simply do not value human life and are filled with hatred for the way free people live their lives, mainly due to their twisted religious views, not to mention the fact that they cannot be reasoned with.

 

[UkHardcore23]

Not the case here. As I said, people want tighter security. I see very little anti Islam sentiment. There has been one report of someone trying to torch a mosque, but that failed miserably.

Did you guys not ban the Burka?

 

[Dennisch]

Did you guys not ban the Burka?

Partially. In and around schools, public transport, hospitals and government buildings. But besides the Burka they also banned anything else that cover the face, like a full helmet, ski mask etc etc.

 

[Exorcet]

I get the self defense stuff, I really do. If you're talking about someone defending their home from intruders, stopping assailants on the street, sure. I can buy the argument and I can understand where you're coming from. But it's just an asinine power fantasy to imagine that a French John McClane could have stopped 4 assailants with automatic weapons in a tiny cramped concert hall with all the panic and confusion. This isn't a Die Hard movie.

This brings up a point about understanding what actually happens in these situations and what the best method of responding actually is. Many valid points are raised and the situation is not so simple as to play out in just one way. Handing out guns with ticket stubs makes no sense, and to be fair RC45 did not suggest this.

In any case, a kneejerk drastic change is not a good idea. Something more sensible is to carry on as-is while keeping current concerns in mind. There are those people among the population already armed and trained. These are the people most likely to help in a bad situation. Maybe there is value in looking into ways to make use of their existing skills.

That said, guns are not "the only hope". Interfering with attacks in progress is good, but the focus should be on preventing them from happening in the first place. There isn't a simple solution that I can see. Meddling in the Middle East by western nations is part of the justification used in attacks. At this point I don't know if just completely backing out of the region would be a good idea. Ideally radical groups would lose interest in attacking outside of the areas that they think of as their land, but then what happens after they set up the state they want?

If western influence in the Middle East was seen as something positive for the people there, they would be less likely to join radical groups as they would have nothing to promise recruits. Building up the region is a lost cause if it's not safe or stable however.

 

[Tornado]

Did you guys not ban the Burka?

Not quite like France did. The Netherlands just banned it (and other face-covering pieces of clothing) in places where visual identification is required like hospitals and schools.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Or they might have scared the attackers into cover for just a few moments and allowed some more people to escape. My point is that hundreds of people were killed or injured anyway and you're assuming the worst possible outcome. There are other potential outcomes in addition to an untrained person randomly shooting their weapon around and killing innocent bystanders.

Armed civilians would not be a deterrent to terrorists planning to die anyway, all it would do is change the method by which they conducted the attack in the first place.

 

[RC45]

If they weren't properly trained on how to open fire in a crowded, dark room that's probably hazy, then there is a really good chance that an innocent bystander would have been hit.

I really think pro-arm-the-world folks forget that shooting a gun accurately isn't exactly easy, especially under extreme conditions. Ever trained people can have a difficult time in the heat of the moment.

Wow - that's funny - the UNTRAINED jihadis had NO problem shooting and killing people in a dark theatre.

Any person with any gun savvy would be able to shoot the bad guy - it is that easy. If it wasn't that easy then the bad guys would not be able to pull it off as easily as they do.

Your (and others) argument carries no water, and until folks are allowed to defend themselves these mass killings will continue and continue and continue.

 

[RC45]

Or they might have scared the attackers into cover for just a few moments and allowed some more people to escape. My point is that hundreds of people were killed or injured anyway and you're assuming the worst possible outcome. There are other potential outcomes in addition to an untrained person randomly shooting their weapon around and killing innocent bystanders.

Johnny, you get it.

The point is that the mere fact that they would face some opposition already saved lives.

Witness how the jihadi with the bomb at the stadium did not want to be frisked and went *boom* outside, saving hundreds of lives.

The idea of armed civilians is to allow at least some folks to escape and to offer resistance to the attackers.

 

[Com Fox]

Wow - that's funny - the UNTRAINED jihadis had NO problem shooting and killing people in a dark theatre.

Any person with any gun savvy would be able to shoot the bad guy - it is that easy. If it wasn't that easy then the bad guys would not be able to pull it off as easily as they do.

Your (and others) argument carries no water, and until folks are allowed to defend themselves these mass killings will continue and continue and continue.

It isn't the fact that they were "untrained" its the fact that this attack was cleverly thought out and executed. They knew exactly what they were doing every step of the way.

 

[Carlos]

Wow - that's funny - the UNTRAINED jihadis had NO problem shooting and killing people in a dark theatre.

Any person with any gun savvy would be able to shoot the bad guy - it is that easy. If it wasn't that easy then the bad guys would not be able to pull it off as easily as they do.

Your (and others) argument carries no water, and until folks are allowed to defend themselves these mass killings will continue and continue and continue.

There are more intelligent solutions to this problem.

 

[Tornado]

Who said that the terrorists were untrained? Who said it is as difficult to spray a crowded theater with an assault rifle as it is to hit one or two guys in that same theater with a handgun?

 

[Dennisch]

There are more intelligent solutions to this problem.

2 guns per person?

 

[Joel]

Who said that the terrorists were untrained? Who said it is as difficult to spray a crowded theater with an assault rifle as it is to hit one or two guys in that same theater with a handgun?

And yeah, this concept is the entire point of automatic weapons.

 

[Exorcet]

Wow - that's funny - the UNTRAINED jihadis had NO problem shooting and killing people in a dark theatre.

Any person with any gun savvy would be able to shoot the bad guy - it is that easy. If it wasn't that easy then the bad guys would not be able to pull it off as easily as they do.

Your (and others) argument carries no water, and until folks are allowed to defend themselves these mass killings will continue and continue and continue.

Given that the attack was organized, these people were likely trained. Unlike the people who would have been in self defense, they had the option to choose a time of attack. The ratio of targets to allies was also drastically different for each side.

The attacking side had the advantage here. Beyond that, I doubt there is any source readily available that would allow us to determine how easy or difficult it would have been to react in each of the attacked zones.

 

[RC45]

Yeah because everyone's a real crack shot in a small, crowded, dark concert hall with hundreds of people screaming and panicking. The most unsettling part of this whole "good guy with a gun" schtick after every mass killing is the subtext, "if I had been there with my gun, I would have stopped this".

I get the self defense stuff, I really do. If you're talking about someone defending their home from intruders, stopping assailants on the street, sure. I can buy the argument and I can understand where you're coming from. But it's just an asinine power fantasy to imagine that a French John McClane could have stopped 4 assailants with automatic weapons in a tiny cramped concert hall with all the panic and confusion. This isn't a Die Hard movie.

No, it is not - but then again how was it possible for the French train massacre to have been stopped if it wasn't a movie?

The reality is that there are people capable and willing to run towards the gun fire - these folks are in the places you are and around you every day. If you allowed them to be armed then they could and would run towards the gun fire and save your sorry arse every time it was needed.

Until then, mass killing will continue to be the norm.

 

[Dennisch]

Until then, mass killing will continue to be the norm

Isn't the US still the mass killing capitol of the world, with all their guns?

But this is for the gun thread, or one of the other piew piew threads.

 

[Carlos]

Because mass killing is not a problem now in the US?

Edit:
Damn ninja

 

[Dennisch]

Damn ninja

 

[Touring Mars]

Wow - that's funny - the UNTRAINED jihadis had NO problem shooting and killing people in a dark theatre.

Any person with any gun savvy would be able to shoot the bad guy - it is that easy. If it wasn't that easy then the bad guys would not be able to pull it off as easily as they do.

Your (and others) argument carries no water, and until folks are allowed to defend themselves these mass killings will continue and continue and continue.

Assuming anyone in the room is 'gun savvy', of course... but apparently being so is not a prerequisite for gun ownership or use. How do you think a panicking person would react with a gun when there are multiple people shooting and others shooting back - how do they distinguish who is a terrorist and who isn't?

However horrible this attack was, it also needs to be kept in perspective. Mass shootings happen every day in the US but not in Europe - it's very rare.

 

[RC45]

Isn't the US still the mass killing capitol of the world, with all their guns?

But this is for the gun thread, or one of the other piew piew threads.

Yes, that is what happens when you have "gun free zones" - only criminals intent on shooting people have guns. Witness the Paris massacre from last Friday.

But it doesn't matter really - you can attack me all you want - until civilians are permitted to defend themselves, jihadis will be running all over Europe committing mass murder.

It is your life that is in danger, not mine. I was just offering a realistic solution to help keep the death toll numbers down.

 

[Touring Mars]

It is your life that is in danger, not mine. I was just offering a realistic solution to help keep the death toll numbers down.

No, you are proposing a 'solution' that is contrary to European culture and is only likely to result in the kind of vast escalation in gun-related deaths (as seen in the USA) while offering no real protection against terrorists who are prepared to die.

 

[RC45]

Assuming anyone in the room is 'gun savvy', of course... but apparently being so is not a prerequisite for gun ownership or use. How do you think a panicking person would react with a gun when there are multiple people shooting and others shooting back - how do they distinguish who is a terrorist and who isn't?

Again your assumption is that everyone is as fearful and unprepared as you are. Do you recall when the folks ran towards the gun fire and stopped the French train massacre in its tracks??? Again, there are many people who would be willing to put their life on the line to save your arse.

However horrible this attack was, it also needs to be kept in perspective. Mass shootings happen every day in the US but not in Europe - it's very rare.

Well, notice how the LAW ABIDING folks in the US do NOT carry their weapons in Gun free Zones - only the criminal is doing that.

We, the LAW ABIDING are sitting ducks in the Gun Free Zones. This is why the criminal chooses the Gun Free Zone for their attack.

Anyway, you don't have to keep attacking me and making this about me - you have a jihadi problem on your hands and are refusing to tackle it head on.

Good luck with that.

 

[Joel]

But it doesn't matter really - you can attack me all you want - until civilians are permitted to defend themselves, jihadis will be running all over Europe committing mass murder.

This is true. I lived in France for 10 months and I was killed by jihadis like 6 or 7 times probably.