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

[Pogo]

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....

Non sequitur.
This was terrorism. Terrorism doesn't have jack shit to do with gun laws.

 

[charwin95]

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.

Sure it's not a rocket science. Is your eyes glued watching the game or concert or staring at people that might pull a gun. Get real...

 

[charwin95]

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.'

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.

Look Rambo.... first shot every one will be a massive panic and confusion. People will running all over the place. Do you expect a person who brought a gun start charging firing at the crowd? Let say 3 of these Rambo red neck start firing inside a crowd. How do they know who is the good guy or the bad guy.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

It's a moot question.

I would never leave the house without my gun, and if a gun is not allowed in certain places, then I don't go there. However, we will never know if just one person or every person there had a gun, if one life could have been saved, or if more lives could have been lost.

Just because someone has a gun, does not mean they have any idea how to use it, responsibly. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[charwin95]

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....?

NO....Because I don't want a Rambo red neck start firing at crowd. As I previously mentioned. First shot everyone will be running a panic at massive scale. I will be running by like everyone else. Even if I brought my gun with me I do not expect myself to be charging and start firing. If 2 or 3 of these Rambo start firing how would they know who is the bad guy or good guy? That's the reality. Not a fantasy.

 

[Jackson]

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....?

Appropriate question! Good for you!

 

[Jackson]

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....?

NO....Because I don't want a Rambo red neck start firing at crowd. As I previously mentioned. First shot everyone will be running a panic at massive scale. I will be running by like everyone else. Even if I brought my gun with me I do not expect myself to be charging and start firing. If 2 or 3 of these Rambo start firing how would they know who is the bad guy or good guy? That's the reality. Not a fantasy.

The one firing the machine gun is generally the killer if you hadn't noticed.

 

[ChrisL]

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....?

Armed of course. I would rather go down fighting than pleading and begging for my life.

 

[westwall]

the theater in Colorado was a gun free zone too...notice the common thread...?

Yep, most public venues are gun free and 99.9999999999% of them haven't experienced what happened in Paris.

Notice the common thread?

Yes, the common thread is when a bad operator wishes to do a great amount of harm he will pick a "gun free" zone. Perfectly logical. Unlike your position.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Sure it's not a rocket science. Is your eyes glued watching the game or concert or staring at people that might pull a gun. Get real...

So, some of you would rather be sitting ducks left at the mercy of these loons, as they cut you down one by one. Okay. To each his or her own, I suppose.

 

[westwall]

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....?

Sure like a gun is really going to stop a SUICIDE BOMB!!!!

When you consider that the suicide vest is not triggered by a dead man switch then yeah, a bullet in the head will indeed stop the bomb from going off. If you weren't such a tard who bases your life and your decisions on movies and TV shows you could have figured that one out. Moron.

 

[ChrisL]

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....?

NO....Because I don't want a Rambo red neck start firing at crowd. As I previously mentioned. First shot everyone will be running a panic at massive scale. I will be running by like everyone else. Even if I brought my gun with me I do not expect myself to be charging and start firing. If 2 or 3 of these Rambo start firing how would they know who is the bad guy or good guy? That's the reality. Not a fantasy.

Doesn't matter at that point. If you don't fight back, you are going to be killed. There isn't going to be any "running by."

 

[westwall]

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.

One of the stupidest posts I have ever seen. A gun, in the hands of a good guy kills the bad guy and the bad guy stops shooting. A can of gasoline into a fire grows the fire. However, a BACKFIRE.....stops the fire. See how that works? Silly boy....

 

[westwall]

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.

And yet they do on a not infrequent basis. i always laugh that you morons bleat that the targets are going to panic when presented with a situation like Sandy Hook when the evidence shows that UNARMED people did not panic and in fact acted in heroic manner. And died doing so....because brainless halfwits like you demand they be unarmed.

You asshats are too stupid for words....you truly are.

 

[HappyJoy]

the theater in Colorado was a gun free zone too...notice the common thread...?

Yep, most public venues are gun free and 99.9999999999% of them haven't experienced what happened in Paris.

Notice the common thread?

Yes, the common thread is when a bad operator wishes to do a great amount of harm he will pick a "gun free" zone. Perfectly logical. Unlike your position.

Where is your evidence? Show me something that demonstrates most shooters choose gun free zones. Not just that a lot of shootings happen in very public venues that are also gun free.

 

[ChrisL]

the theater in Colorado was a gun free zone too...notice the common thread...?

Yep, most public venues are gun free and 99.9999999999% of them haven't experienced what happened in Paris.

Notice the common thread?

Yes, the common thread is when a bad operator wishes to do a great amount of harm he will pick a "gun free" zone. Perfectly logical. Unlike your position.

Where is your evidence? Show me something that demonstrates most shooters choose gun free zones. Not just that a lot of shootings happen in very public venues that are also gun free.

Of course they would choose gun free zones. That is just plain old common sense. They are going to choose a place with the least amount of resistance if possible. Why do you think so many shootings happen at schools?

 

[ChrisL]

These killers know they can go into any school or any "gun free zone" and they are going to be met with minimal resistance. Why wouldn't they choose such targets? Geez. Common sense seems so rare.

 

[Pogo]

These killers know they can go into any school or any "gun free zone" and they are going to be met with minimal resistance. Why wouldn't they choose such targets? Geez. Common sense seems so rare.

That's another common myth mongered by mythmongers.
You seem to be vulnerable to that sort of thing.

the theater in Colorado was a gun free zone too...notice the common thread...?

Yep, most public venues are gun free and 99.9999999999% of them haven't experienced what happened in Paris.

Notice the common thread?

Yes, the common thread is when a bad operator wishes to do a great amount of harm he will pick a "gun free" zone. Perfectly logical. Unlike your position.

Where is your evidence? Show me something that demonstrates most shooters choose gun free zones. Not just that a lot of shootings happen in very public venues that are also gun free.

Of course they would choose gun free zones. That is just plain old common sense. They are going to choose a place with the least amount of resistance if possible. Why do you think so many shootings happen at schools?

Uh .... because they're perpetrated by students with big time social problems, out for revenge.
This some kind of trick question?

 

[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.

One of the stupidest posts I have ever seen. A gun, in the hands of a good guy kills the bad guy and the bad guy stops shooting. A can of gasoline into a fire grows the fire. However, a BACKFIRE.....stops the fire. See how that works? Silly boy....

"good guys" and "bad guys".
--- and he wants to pretend he's NOT living in a comic book.

Classic.

 

[ChrisL]

These killers know they can go into any school or any "gun free zone" and they are going to be met with minimal resistance. Why wouldn't they choose such targets? Geez. Common sense seems so rare.

That's another common myth mongered by mythmongers.
You seem to be vulnerable to that sort of thing.

the theater in Colorado was a gun free zone too...notice the common thread...?

Yep, most public venues are gun free and 99.9999999999% of them haven't experienced what happened in Paris.

Notice the common thread?

Yes, the common thread is when a bad operator wishes to do a great amount of harm he will pick a "gun free" zone. Perfectly logical. Unlike your position.

Where is your evidence? Show me something that demonstrates most shooters choose gun free zones. Not just that a lot of shootings happen in very public venues that are also gun free.

Of course they would choose gun free zones. That is just plain old common sense. They are going to choose a place with the least amount of resistance if possible. Why do you think so many shootings happen at schools?

Uh .... because they're perpetrated by students with big time social problems, out for revenge.
This some kind of trick question?

That's not true all the time. There have been many school shootings committed by people who were not students. Hello? Where do you live?