if you were in that concert hall..would you want a gun...a poll

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

What defies logic is the wrongheaded notion that armed, untrained civilians would be able to 'stop' the terrorist attack.

The terrorists weren't wearing special 'terrorist uniforms,' you'd have everyone with a gun shooting at anyone with a gun, in addition to innocent bystanders being injured and killed by errant shots from untrained nitwits who have little experience shooting handguns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

Actually what defies logic is the childish fantasy that you can play dress-up Batman with a cowboy hat and have everybody walk around packing heat............. and then wonder "what could possibly go wrong"?

That would save terrorists a lot of work. They could fire one shot and leave these self-styled comic book heroes to do their work for them. What defies logic is assessing "problem -- presence of deadly weapon; solution -- MORE deadly weapons".

Adding this post to your previous illogical post, isnt helping you look any less insane and naive.

So your only rebuttal to that logic is childish ad hominem.

It figures.

You are accusing us of wanting to "play dress-up". What sort of response did you expect? Your post is loony.

No, your position is being correctly and factually condemned as devoid of merit, foundation, and evidence in support; it's an unwarranted fantasy predicated on a errant perception of what constitutes a 'gun fight.'

 

[Godboy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

What defies logic is the wrongheaded notion that armed, untrained civilians would be able to 'stop' the terrorist attack.

The terrorists weren't wearing special 'terrorist uniforms,' you'd have everyone with a gun shooting at anyone with a gun, in addition to innocent bystanders being injured and killed by errant shots from untrained nitwits who have little experience shooting handguns.

Civilians with guns stop armed criminals every day. When you see the guy with a bomb vest and a AK-47 yelling "Allahu Akbar", you point your gun at him and pull the trigger. This isnt rocket science, for most of us anyway. You seem like you are easilly confused, so yeah, maybe YOU shouldnt have a gun, but the rest of us would do just fine.

 

[2aguy]

A look back at stupid things said by anti gun extremists..

Quote of the Day: Paris Terrorist Attack Edition
By Robert Farago on November 14, 2015

 

[2aguy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

What defies logic is the wrongheaded notion that armed, untrained civilians would be able to 'stop' the terrorist attack.

The terrorists weren't wearing special 'terrorist uniforms,' you'd have everyone with a gun shooting at anyone with a gun, in addition to innocent bystanders being injured and killed by errant shots from untrained nitwits who have little experience shooting handguns.

Civilians with guns stop armed criminals every day. When you see the guy with a bomb vest and a AK-47 yelling "Allahu Akbar", you point your gun at him and pull the trigger. This isnt rocket science, for most of us anyway. You seem like you are easilly confused, so yeah, maybe YOU shouldnt have a gun, but the rest of us would do just fine.

And the thing is....it is better to shoot them at a distance...possibly making them detonate their bomb before they planned on it, rather than letting them get closer to you....

With bombs...being farther away is better than being closer......and guns allow you that chance.

 

[Godboy]

Your post defies logic.

Actually what defies logic is the childish fantasy that you can play dress-up Batman with a cowboy hat and have everybody walk around packing heat............. and then wonder "what could possibly go wrong"?

That would save terrorists a lot of work. They could fire one shot and leave these self-styled comic book heroes to do their work for them. What defies logic is assessing "problem -- presence of deadly weapon; solution -- MORE deadly weapons".

Adding this post to your previous illogical post, isnt helping you look any less insane and naive.

So your only rebuttal to that logic is childish ad hominem.

It figures.

You are accusing us of wanting to "play dress-up". What sort of response did you expect? Your post is loony.

No, your position is being correctly and factually condemned as devoid of merit, foundation, and evidence in support; it's an unwarranted fantasy predicated on a errant perception of what constitutes a 'gun fight.'

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

What defies logic is the wrongheaded notion that armed, untrained civilians would be able to 'stop' the terrorist attack.

The terrorists weren't wearing special 'terrorist uniforms,' you'd have everyone with a gun shooting at anyone with a gun, in addition to innocent bystanders being injured and killed by errant shots from untrained nitwits who have little experience shooting handguns.

Civilians with guns stop armed criminals every day. When you see the guy with a bomb vest and a AK-47 yelling "Allahu Akbar", you point your gun at him and pull the trigger. This isnt rocket science, for most of us anyway. You seem like you are easilly confused, so yeah, maybe YOU shouldnt have a gun, but the rest of us would do just fine.

And the thing is....it is better to shoot them at a distance...possibly making them detonate their bomb before they planned on it, rather than letting them get closer to you....

With bombs...being farther away is better than being closer......and guns allow you that chance.

If people had guns in there, theres a good chance they would have never been able to detonate their bombs. Since their hands were shooting AKs, the bombs werent on a dead mans switch.They only detonated their bombs when the cops came storming in and the end was upon them. One guy with a pistol could have dramatically reduced the loss of life inside that concert hall.

 

[2aguy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

What defies logic is the wrongheaded notion that armed, untrained civilians would be able to 'stop' the terrorist attack.

The terrorists weren't wearing special 'terrorist uniforms,' you'd have everyone with a gun shooting at anyone with a gun, in addition to innocent bystanders being injured and killed by errant shots from untrained nitwits who have little experience shooting handguns.

Yeah...you simply shoot the guys who are murdering innocent people.....narrows down your targeting choices pretty fucking well.....

 

[2aguy]

And notice that when an armed normal person is at one of these places...the death toll is lower......

Like at the Tucson shooting? That didn't help.

and when one of those 99.999999999% of places is attacked........no one can stop it...because they are gun free zones....they have to wait for guys with guns to show up.........just like in France...where many of those 99.9999999999% places were attacked...

Stop what? they aren't attacked, that's the point.

that you guys would prefer to be helpless is just sad........and to watch family me,gets murdered in front of you and you having no option to try to stop it...

Fantasy.

Not fantasy...real world...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Cherry picking, love it.

What do you mean cherry picking...these actually happened....I compared church shootings to church shootings....and then you have all the other times armed people have stopped mass shooters and criminals as well.....

You compared exactly 5 shootings to each other. Statistically it doesn't amount to shit.

It shows churches that allowed their parishioners to carry guns stopped mass shooters at a cost of only two lives...the two churches that were attacked by mass shooters who banned guns...lost 15 people.....

 

[2aguy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

Actually what defies logic is the childish fantasy that you can play dress-up Batman with a cowboy hat and have everybody walk around packing heat............. and then wonder "what could possibly go wrong"?

That would save terrorists a lot of work. They could fire one shot and leave these self-styled comic book heroes to do their work for them. What defies logic is assessing "problem -- presence of deadly weapon; solution -- MORE deadly weapons".

Funny.....they had everyone "Packing heat" at the NRA Convention in Tenessee..and no one started shooting anyone...normal people don't shoot other people...go to democrat cities to see criminals murdering other criminals.

 

[Mr Natural]

Absolutely!

I'd want to do everything I could to attract attention to myself.

 

[2aguy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

Actually what defies logic is the childish fantasy that you can play dress-up Batman with a cowboy hat and have everybody walk around packing heat............. and then wonder "what could possibly go wrong"?

That would save terrorists a lot of work. They could fire one shot and leave these self-styled comic book heroes to do their work for them. What defies logic is assessing "problem -- presence of deadly weapon; solution -- MORE deadly weapons".

See...you speak without studying the issue...we have had more than a few instances where a concealed carrier was in the middle of a mass shooting and decided not to shoot since the situation did not warrant it...Klackamas, gabby Giffords, Oregon....the restaurant in Indiana..which was a robbery in progress...

You are wrong....

 

[2aguy]

If you killed them before they detonated the bombs.....or if you shot them in a location where there were fewer rather than more victims they would have detonated their vests and killed fewer people.....notice, they didn't detonate their vests until the guys with guns arrived...until then they calmly executed helpless people...

You see, if you just used your x-ray vision to identify your target and each available threat he offers and then enabled your own powers of ESP to predict the movements of the terrorists while simultaneously stepping into your time machine to magically teleport to the exact time space continuum and step on their shoelaces and, and, and...bang, bang your imaginary girlfriend thinks you're a hero.

Or...you just shoot the fucker if he presents the opportunity.....no special powers needed...just a gun.

Just a gun? How about the training and ability to use it at the very least?

But, you told your big "if" story and that relies on more than just a gun.

Did I say anything against training? And if you actually read the stories of self defense....most people manage just fine with little to no training...not all self defense situations require Navy Seal shooting skills...

Just many states don't require any sort of training to take your gun and play hero. After all, according to you, all you need is a gun.

In most cases yes. I always advocate for the most training you can get...but I won't let it be used to keep people from owning guns......just like I won't let poll taxes or literacy tests keep people from exercising their right to vote.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

What defies logic is the wrongheaded notion that armed, untrained civilians would be able to 'stop' the terrorist attack.

The terrorists weren't wearing special 'terrorist uniforms,' you'd have everyone with a gun shooting at anyone with a gun, in addition to innocent bystanders being injured and killed by errant shots from untrained nitwits who have little experience shooting handguns.

Many if not most with carry permits have as much or more training and range time than your local cops.

 

[2aguy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

What defies logic is the wrongheaded notion that armed, untrained civilians would be able to 'stop' the terrorist attack.

The terrorists weren't wearing special 'terrorist uniforms,' you'd have everyone with a gun shooting at anyone with a gun, in addition to innocent bystanders being injured and killed by errant shots from untrained nitwits who have little experience shooting handguns.

Many if not most with carry permits have as much or more training and range time than your local cops.

Yeah....cops....they are dangerous with their guns....

 

[Pogo]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

Actually what defies logic is the childish fantasy that you can play dress-up Batman with a cowboy hat and have everybody walk around packing heat............. and then wonder "what could possibly go wrong"?

That would save terrorists a lot of work. They could fire one shot and leave these self-styled comic book heroes to do their work for them. What defies logic is assessing "problem -- presence of deadly weapon; solution -- MORE deadly weapons".

See...you speak without studying the issue...we have had more than a few instances where a concealed carrier was in the middle of a mass shooting and decided not to shoot since the situation did not warrant it...Klackamas, gabby Giffords, Oregon....the restaurant in Indiana..which was a robbery in progress...

You are wrong....

"Wrong"? Look Doodles, you posted a poll question and I answered it. If you only want answers you like, go start a blog.

 

[Liminal]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Gun or not you'd be just as dead. But keep fantasizing about that imaginary scenario where you kill all the terrorists and save the day.

 

[Pogo]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Gun or not you'd be just as dead. But keep fantasizing about that imaginary scenario where you kill all the terrorists and save the day.

​

Oh wait, you forgot "and get the girl, and ride off into the sunset".

 

[2aguy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Fuck no. For the same reason that if I were in a building that caught fire I wouldn't want to be carrying a can of gasoline.

​

Summa y'all just continue to live in the comic books. Captain Oblivious, in spandex.

Your post defies logic.

Actually what defies logic is the childish fantasy that you can play dress-up Batman with a cowboy hat and have everybody walk around packing heat............. and then wonder "what could possibly go wrong"?

That would save terrorists a lot of work. They could fire one shot and leave these self-styled comic book heroes to do their work for them. What defies logic is assessing "problem -- presence of deadly weapon; solution -- MORE deadly weapons".

See...you speak without studying the issue...we have had more than a few instances where a concealed carrier was in the middle of a mass shooting and decided not to shoot since the situation did not warrant it...Klackamas, gabby Giffords, Oregon....the restaurant in Indiana..which was a robbery in progress...

You are wrong....

"Wrong"? Look Doodles, you posted a poll question and I answered it. If you only want answers you like, go start a blog.

You can post whatever you want...say what you want....I love people speaking their mind...but if you are wrong, I will say so....and then you can tell me I'm wrong and we can argue and debate.....

 

[2aguy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Gun or not you'd be just as dead. But keep fantasizing about that imaginary scenario where you kill all the terrorists and save the day.

what is it with you guys...you like speaking out of your ass.....did you even look at these events with normal gun owners on the scene...obviously not...

 

[2aguy]

It occurred to me...not a lot of calls for more gun control...some...Everytown for gun control stupidity chimed in but not as vocal....

and the posts of Kaz and others made it clear.....

France has every single gun control law the anti gun extremists want....no handguns allowed, extreme control over hunting shotguns...no magazines let alone 10 round magazines.....no background checks needed because normal,people can't own or carry guns.......absolute "assault weapon ban"

and none of it stopped these attacks with fully automatic military rifles...and most of these guys are recent immigrants without deep roots in France, and one of them was arrested 8 times for terrorist sympathetic activities and he was on a watch list at that......

and they easily got all of their guns and bombs......,

this is an epic...massive....complete repudiation of every stupid gun law the anti gunners keep telling us will stop these attacks........

that is why they are so silent....the twits....