In light of the attacks in Paris...shall we discuss gun control?

[MikeK]

again...all you anti gun types...watch "Terror in the Mall" about the terrorists who attacked the mall in Kenya........they have the entire attack on video feeds and you can see every place where an armed civilian could have stopped the attackers...and where unarmed civilians were executed.....they show all of the killing...the people hiding behind the counter in the store...the guy hiding under the large animal decoration.....had they had guns, they could have saved their own lives and the lives of others...."

I watched that video and you are quite right. One or two armed individuals could have turned that incident around.

 

[Dante]

Hey Gyp!

 

[Missourian]

No doubt in an attack like that, bedlam ensues

You are not a trained special forces vet, you are an overweight gun nut. Lights are down, people are screaming, terrorists are firing and so are your fellow, overweight gun nuts. Who do you shoot at? Who is returning fire on you?

This thread got long.

In this case, some bedlam would be the preferable outcome, compared to slaughter like sheep. Again, at least there would be an opportunity to fight or flee.

No, I'm not a highly trained special forces trooper...that's my brother. I was a highly trained intelligence analyst...and one thing I understand is the balance of power.

Three armed men can hold 200 unarmed people captive...but three armed men cannot hold 197 unarmed with 3 armed men among there number, even if the captors have a firepower advantage.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gun control in France contributed to the high body count. No doubt about it.

The police in France are not armed. They were the first responders. They could do nothing. The gendarmes are the only ones allowed to have weapons and it took an hour for them to deploy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Having lived in parts or rural France I can say with certainty most if not all farms have one or more long guns somewhere easily accessible.
Same with farms in the US.
You don't see radical Islamofascists attacking these places.
They only target places where they are sure no one is armed.

Why would you attack a farm with a few people in it?
These people are after maximum impact...nothing to do with whether there are guns there or not.

Again..they did not attack the Special Police Headquarters or a well defended military base...did they?

But they have in many countries as I pointed out.

but the majority of attacks happen against unarmed civilians.......just like our mass shooters here.......and I notice that when the police are attacked...they don't call for their guns to be thrown away...do they?


and again...shooting a bomber farther away saves lives...and has been pointed out by other posters...they did not appear to have dead man switches...which means you shoot them and kill or disable them...no detonation.

You won't know they are s bomber till they blow up. They won't warn you so you can shoot them far away.

A revelation I say!

 

[idb]

Having lived in parts or rural France I can say with certainty most if not all farms have one or more long guns somewhere easily accessible.
Same with farms in the US.
You don't see radical Islamofascists attacking these places.
They only target places where they are sure no one is armed.

Why would you attack a farm with a few people in it?
These people are after maximum impact...nothing to do with whether there are guns there or not.

Again..they did not attack the Special Police Headquarters or a well defended military base...did they?

What would be the point of that?
You'd get sent packing or killed before you managed to cause any damage.

 

[idb]

Having lived in parts or rural France I can say with certainty most if not all farms have one or more long guns somewhere easily accessible.
Same with farms in the US.
You don't see radical Islamofascists attacking these places.
They only target places where they are sure no one is armed.

Why would you attack a farm with a few people in it?
These people are after maximum impact...nothing to do with whether there are guns there or not.

Rrriiiiiigggghhhhhttttttt. It's just coincidence that shooters keep going to places they know there aren't guns. I wouldn't take telemarketing calls. Seriously....

Is it too hard to figure out...really?
They want to make the maximum impact...ya know...terrorise the population.
Attacking a farm with a few people in the middle of nowhere is hardly going to achieve that now, is it?

Do you really think that they attacked in the middle of Paris instead of the middle of the countryside because they thought there might be a couple of less shotguns about?

 

[Dante]

No doubt in an attack like that, bedlam ensues

You are not a trained special forces vet, you are an overweight gun nut. Lights are down, people are screaming, terrorists are firing and so are your fellow, overweight gun nuts. Who do you shoot at? Who is returning fire on you?

This thread got long.

In this case, some bedlam would be the preferable outcome, compared to slaughter like sheep. Again, at least there would be an opportunity to fight or flee.

No, I'm not a highly trained special forces trooper...that's my brother. I was a highly trained intelligence analyst...and one thing I understand is the balance of power.

Three armed men can hold 200 unarmed people captive...but three armed men cannot hold 197 unarmed with 3 armed men among there number, even if the captors have a firepower advantage.

in a crowd
A man with a pistol will do very little to stop 3 with Kalashnikovs

Bystander Joseph Robert Wilcox, 31, who was carrying a concealed weapon inside the store, spotted Jerad Miller and told a friend he would confront him, according to authorities. As he neared Jerad, he was shot by Amanda and later died​

 

[Dante]

Gun control in France contributed to the high body count. No doubt about it.

The police in France are not armed. They were the first responders. They could do nothing. The gendarmes are the only ones allowed to have weapons and it took an hour for them to deploy.

If the objective of terrorists is to instill terror, would half the amounts of death only been half as horrifying?

judging from people like you, the terrorists would have won if they killed only 13vpeople

 

[Katzndogz]

Gun control in France contributed to the high body count. No doubt about it.

The police in France are not armed. They were the first responders. They could do nothing. The gendarmes are the only ones allowed to have weapons and it took an hour for them to deploy.

If the objective of terrorists is to instill terror, would half the amounts of death only been half as horrifying?

judging from people like you, the terrorists would have won if they killed only 13vpeople

The terrorists have won if they only killed one and there were no consequences. In the Paris incident, there will be no consequences. John Kerry's response is to call for elections in Syria in six months.

 

[Brain357]

And now for the real problem.......they learn. They see how successful they were against large, unarmed civilian targets.....so why on earth would they waste any future attacks against well armed police or military targets.........

And get ready.....they are coming here....

Yes they learn. So if the victims start being armed they just blow themselves up. That is why arming will make no difference, they learn.

 

[Brain357]

No doubt in an attack like that, bedlam ensues

You are not a trained special forces vet, you are an overweight gun nut. Lights are down, people are screaming, terrorists are firing and so are your fellow, overweight gun nuts. Who do you shoot at? Who is returning fire on you?

This thread got long.

In this case, some bedlam would be the preferable outcome, compared to slaughter like sheep. Again, at least there would be an opportunity to fight or flee.

No, I'm not a highly trained special forces trooper...that's my brother. I was a highly trained intelligence analyst...and one thing I understand is the balance of power.

Three armed men can hold 200 unarmed people captive...but three armed men cannot hold 197 unarmed with 3 armed men among there number, even if the captors have a firepower advantage.

in a crowd
A man with a pistol will do very little to stop 3 with Kalashnikovs

Bystander Joseph Robert Wilcox, 31, who was carrying a concealed weapon inside the store, spotted Jerad Miller and told a friend he would confront him, according to authorities. As he neared Jerad, he was shot by Amanda and later died​

That one of the examples where the armed hero was there. All it got him was shot. Defender needs to be cautious, the killers can just shoot everyone.

 

[kaz]

[...]

Sooooo....you are wrong.....completely wrong....you simply watch the democrats on the news and accept what they tell you..actual research shows they are wrong..

All Democrats are not anti-gun. So thinking in such vaguely categorical terms tends to be misleading and dilutes the need for accuracy.

I was a registered Republican dating back to the Goldwater years. I realized the direction that party was moving in during the Reagan years, so I re-registered as a Democrat in the mid-80s -- only because there is no Independent Party in New Jersey and I wish to vote in primaries.

Goldwater wasn't a Marxist like the modern Democrat party no matter how often faux Republicans want to claim they were once a Republican.

And I agree that not all Democrats are anti-gun rights. However, all of them are silent in gun discussions about it, they bring it up in other conversations is a pathetic attempt to sound like they are not monolithic leftist. You know, like claiming they were a Republican 50 years ago...

 

[kaz]

The muslims do......

The liberals are so stupid they can't process that cheering gun deaths in countries that ban them is counter to their argument, it doesn't support it. The more wrong liberals are, the smugger they are about it

that is one of their strange traits, isn't it........they are wrong and proudly wrong on so many issues...

I just had to highlight your mocking the Dutch at the expense of 129 dead French. Who is cheering gun deaths anywhere?
And I would bet $$$ you had to Google Theo van Gogh, too.

are you addressing me...I knew about Theo Van Gogh when he was murdered...it was actually covered by conservative media..unlike the democrat media that ignored the fact that he was stabbed, and shot and had the knife left in his chest with a note on it...and then the killer, in court, said he wished he could kill his family as well......

No, I was addressing KazTwit. But now that you've stepped in it, why don't you prove the "democrat media ignored the fact that he was stabbed"? Oh, here let me do it for you. So you can STFU now:

Dutch Filmmaker, an Islam Critic, Is Killed
By MARLISE SIMONS NOV. 3, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/world/europe/dutch-filmmaker-an-islam-critic-is-killed.html?_r=0

"""The man suspected of killing Mr. van Gogh fired several shots at about 8:30 a.m., then crossed the street and stabbed him several times with a knife, a police spokesman said. Witnesses told the police that the assailant then stuck a note on his victim's chest with the knife.""

Righties always shoot their mouth off first and don't ask any questions later.

Lefties always shoot their mouth off first and ask snotty questions that have nothing to do with anything. I guess that's why you worship the Republican party. Turn off Rush Limbaugh, guy and learn what's going on in the world and think for yourself

what was your point other than proving again that you're a dick?

 

[kaz]

The liberals are so stupid they can't process that cheering gun deaths in countries that ban them is counter to their argument, it doesn't support it. The more wrong liberals are, the smugger they are about it

that is one of their strange traits, isn't it........they are wrong and proudly wrong on so many issues...

I just had to highlight your mocking the Dutch at the expense of 129 dead French. Who is cheering gun deaths anywhere?
And I would bet $$$ you had to Google Theo van Gogh, too.

are you addressing me...I knew about Theo Van Gogh when he was murdered...it was actually covered by conservative media..unlike the democrat media that ignored the fact that he was stabbed, and shot and had the knife left in his chest with a note on it...and then the killer, in court, said he wished he could kill his family as well......

No, I was addressing KazTwit. But now that you've stepped in it, why don't you prove the "democrat media ignored the fact that he was stabbed"? Oh, here let me do it for you. So you can STFU now:

Dutch Filmmaker, an Islam Critic, Is Killed
By MARLISE SIMONS NOV. 3, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/world/europe/dutch-filmmaker-an-islam-critic-is-killed.html?_r=0

"""The man suspected of killing Mr. van Gogh fired several shots at about 8:30 a.m., then crossed the street and stabbed him several times with a knife, a police spokesman said. Witnesses told the police that the assailant then stuck a note on his victim's chest with the knife.""

Righties always shoot their mouth off first and don't ask any questions later.

yeah...try that on someone else...how long did it take to point out it was a Muslim...and how much actual,coverage was there...little to none......get real....

talk about shooting his mouth off without turning on his brain, France is proof of the failure of his plan, keeping guns from criminals by making them illegal. And he's still high fiving his sick liberal friends over more gun deaths where his only contribution is driving up the body count by continuing to disarm the victims to defend them

 

[kaz]

The muslims do......

The liberals are so stupid they can't process that cheering gun deaths in countries that ban them is counter to their argument, it doesn't support it. The more wrong liberals are, the smugger they are about it

that is one of their strange traits, isn't it........they are wrong and proudly wrong on so many issues...

I just had to highlight your mocking the Dutch at the expense of 129 dead French. Who is cheering gun deaths anywhere?
And I would bet $$$ you had to Google Theo van Gogh, too.

Um...he was mocking you, Holmes, not the Dutch. You know they offer remedial reading classes

NTPP suffers from cognitive dissonance. Oh yeah, they are pretty retarded too. They seem to always figure out a way to ignore the OP and spew nonsense. The facts are had a few people been armed in the theatre there wouldn't be over 100 dead in there.

Yes, Republicans like NPP don't get reality, that's why he worships George W Bush and thinks he's one of the greatest Presidents in American history

 

[kaz]

Having lived in parts or rural France I can say with certainty most if not all farms have one or more long guns somewhere easily accessible.
Same with farms in the US.
You don't see radical Islamofascists attacking these places.
They only target places where they are sure no one is armed.

Why would you attack a farm with a few people in it?
These people are after maximum impact...nothing to do with whether there are guns there or not.

Rrriiiiiigggghhhhhttttttt. It's just coincidence that shooters keep going to places they know there aren't guns. I wouldn't take telemarketing calls. Seriously....

Is it too hard to figure out...really?
They want to make the maximum impact...ya know...terrorise the population.
Attacking a farm with a few people in the middle of nowhere is hardly going to achieve that now, is it?

Do you really think that they attacked in the middle of Paris instead of the middle of the countryside because they thought there might be a couple of less shotguns about?

I'd have been a lot more terrorized if they went after police stations and military bases and pulled that off instead of shooting at people they knew were unarmed.

Terrorists lead you by a nose ring.

Here's a case, Holmes. name one war that was won by the strategy of murdering civilians?

 

[idb]

Having lived in parts or rural France I can say with certainty most if not all farms have one or more long guns somewhere easily accessible.
Same with farms in the US.
You don't see radical Islamofascists attacking these places.
They only target places where they are sure no one is armed.

Why would you attack a farm with a few people in it?
These people are after maximum impact...nothing to do with whether there are guns there or not.

Rrriiiiiigggghhhhhttttttt. It's just coincidence that shooters keep going to places they know there aren't guns. I wouldn't take telemarketing calls. Seriously....

Is it too hard to figure out...really?
They want to make the maximum impact...ya know...terrorise the population.
Attacking a farm with a few people in the middle of nowhere is hardly going to achieve that now, is it?

Do you really think that they attacked in the middle of Paris instead of the middle of the countryside because they thought there might be a couple of less shotguns about?

I'd have been a lot more terrorized if they went after police stations and military bases and pulled that off instead of shooting at people they knew were unarmed.

Terrorists lead you by a nose ring.

Here's a case, Holmes. name one war that was won by the strategy of murdering civilians?

The strategy is to terrorise citizens.
They've done it very successfully.
Governments are spying on their own people, travelling is a total pain in the arse, fear of the foreigner is increasing...
They don't intend to win a war by killing civilians...they want to goad you into sending bombs and missiles so that they can get more recruits.

 

[kaz]

Having lived in parts or rural France I can say with certainty most if not all farms have one or more long guns somewhere easily accessible.
Same with farms in the US.
You don't see radical Islamofascists attacking these places.
They only target places where they are sure no one is armed.

Why would you attack a farm with a few people in it?
These people are after maximum impact...nothing to do with whether there are guns there or not.

Rrriiiiiigggghhhhhttttttt. It's just coincidence that shooters keep going to places they know there aren't guns. I wouldn't take telemarketing calls. Seriously....

Is it too hard to figure out...really?
They want to make the maximum impact...ya know...terrorise the population.
Attacking a farm with a few people in the middle of nowhere is hardly going to achieve that now, is it?

Do you really think that they attacked in the middle of Paris instead of the middle of the countryside because they thought there might be a couple of less shotguns about?

I'd have been a lot more terrorized if they went after police stations and military bases and pulled that off instead of shooting at people they knew were unarmed.

Terrorists lead you by a nose ring.

Here's a case, Holmes. name one war that was won by the strategy of murdering civilians?

The strategy is to terrorise citizens.
They've done it very successfully.
Governments are spying on their own people, travelling is a total pain in the arse, fear of the foreigner is increasing...
They don't intend to win a war by killing civilians...they want to goad you into sending bombs and missiles so that they can get more recruits.

The liberal media leads you by a nose ring

 

[idb]

Why would you attack a farm with a few people in it?
These people are after maximum impact...nothing to do with whether there are guns there or not.

Rrriiiiiigggghhhhhttttttt. It's just coincidence that shooters keep going to places they know there aren't guns. I wouldn't take telemarketing calls. Seriously....

Is it too hard to figure out...really?
They want to make the maximum impact...ya know...terrorise the population.
Attacking a farm with a few people in the middle of nowhere is hardly going to achieve that now, is it?

Do you really think that they attacked in the middle of Paris instead of the middle of the countryside because they thought there might be a couple of less shotguns about?

I'd have been a lot more terrorized if they went after police stations and military bases and pulled that off instead of shooting at people they knew were unarmed.

Terrorists lead you by a nose ring.

Here's a case, Holmes. name one war that was won by the strategy of murdering civilians?

The strategy is to terrorise citizens.
They've done it very successfully.
Governments are spying on their own people, travelling is a total pain in the arse, fear of the foreigner is increasing...
They don't intend to win a war by killing civilians...they want to goad you into sending bombs and missiles so that they can get more recruits.

The liberal media leads you by a nose ring

Well done.