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

[Jantje_Smit]

Gun control worked incredibly well in France....not one of the victims who was murdered tonight will have been armed and able to resist the attack....

Right, if only the victims had suicide vests too they could have defended themselves......

 

[Lovebears65]

How can you politicise this tragedy before the bodies are even cold?!

Obama does it every time there is a shooting here ? Do you criticize him for doing it or do you cheer him on and agree with him

 

[kaz]

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.

They blow themselves up and shoot hundreds of people ... as a recruiting drive ... You are an intellectual powerhouse, Milton.

Oh, and why doe they want to recruit? To blow themselves up and shoot hundreds of people ...

 

[2aguy]

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.

More people should see it......they would have a better understanding of these monsters...

 

[2aguy]

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​

Yes...one incident of one man with a pistol and two armed shooters, the one he didn't know was there......and I have posted a list of all the other times that shooters were stopped by armed citizens.....and saved lives...notice too.....he was the only armed citizen......if there had been more.....and what if they had just started shooting people......would you prefer no one tried to stop them?

 

[2aguy]

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​

here you go...just a few of many, many times concealed carriers stopped mass shooters...

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.”

 

[2aguy]

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.

and that negates my point how? they attack gun free zones.....

Here...shall we compare the death toll vs. attacks on well armed police stations...and those against unarmed civilian locations......?

Armed doesn't matter. How many people were armed on 9/11? It doesn't matter.

All the passengers were disarmed getting on the plane..by law....and no pilots had guns back then...and air marshals weren't as prevelant on continental flights.....notice..the solution they took up...more armed air marshals and arming pilots...

 

[Little-Acorn]

Gun control worked incredibly well in France....not one of the victims who was murdered tonight will have been armed and able to resist the attack....

Right, if only the victims had suicide vests too they could have defended themselves......

This hysterical ranting is typical of a liberal who hates what he hears but can't refute it.

 

[longknife]

(I was thinking of making this a separate thread but will post it here)

Would having armed patrons in the theater have stopped the terrorists?

I don't think so.

Would having armed security guards and weapons screening have stopped it?

Probably. Or at least providing an alert that danger was eminent.

However, there is no way that drive-by shootings like the one at the cafe can be stopped by having armed patrons. But, having someone able to shoot back might have stopped them from carry out more parts of their plans.

What CAN be done to stop acts of terror like this?

Don't just watch the radicals - ACT TO STOP THEM BEFORE THEY BOMB AND KILL PEOPLE.

If they are here, send them back to the Middle East or Africa where they came from.

 

[2aguy]

(I was thinking of making this a separate thread but will post it here)

Would having armed patrons in the theater have stopped the terrorists?

I don't think so.

Would having armed security guards and weapons screening have stopped it?

Probably. Or at least providing an alert that danger was eminent.

However, there is no way that drive-by shootings like the one at the cafe can be stopped by having armed patrons. But, having someone able to shoot back might have stopped them from carry out more parts of their plans.

What CAN be done to stop acts of terror like this?

Don't just watch the radicals - ACT TO STOP THEM BEFORE THEY BOMB AND KILL PEOPLE.

If they are here, send them back to the Middle East or Africa where they came from.

at one of the restaurants they got out of their car to do the shooting...in that case it would be possible to shot back...

In the concert hall..if you had a gun you could have used it to protect those around you in a room inside the hall, the kitchen, the janitors closet a bathroom....an office.....backstage....because then you could have barricaded yourself and used your gun to drive off the attackers.......

 

[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​

here you go...just a few of many, many times concealed carriers stopped mass shooters...

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.”

How many times have you posted that one this same thread gunbot?

Also you should mention the janitor shot by the pastor was a concealed carry good guy.

 

[idb]

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.

They blow themselves up and shoot hundreds of people ... as a recruiting drive ... You are an intellectual powerhouse, Milton.

Oh, and why doe they want to recruit? To blow themselves up and shoot hundreds of people ...

You don't think that blundering into the Middle East with Western troops will play into their hands?
Didn't you learn anything from the Iraq debacle?

 

[Brain357]

(I was thinking of making this a separate thread but will post it here)

Would having armed patrons in the theater have stopped the terrorists?

I don't think so.

Would having armed security guards and weapons screening have stopped it?

Probably. Or at least providing an alert that danger was eminent.

However, there is no way that drive-by shootings like the one at the cafe can be stopped by having armed patrons. But, having someone able to shoot back might have stopped them from carry out more parts of their plans.

What CAN be done to stop acts of terror like this?

Don't just watch the radicals - ACT TO STOP THEM BEFORE THEY BOMB AND KILL PEOPLE.

If they are here, send them back to the Middle East or Africa where they came from.

Yes you really have to get them before they are attacking. Armed people will make no difference when they are suicide bombers. They learn like was suggested earlier. If one attempt is foiled by someone armed they will make sure that can't happen next time. No defense to a suicide bomber.

 

[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.

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.

and that negates my point how? they attack gun free zones.....

Here...shall we compare the death toll vs. attacks on well armed police stations...and those against unarmed civilian locations......?

Armed doesn't matter. How many people were armed on 9/11? It doesn't matter.

All the passengers were disarmed getting on the plane..by law....and no pilots had guns back then...and air marshals weren't as prevelant on continental flights.....notice..the solution they took up...more armed air marshals and arming pilots...

So, the solution wasn't to arm the passengers?
Interesting.

 

[Iceweasel]

Being armed isn't going to prevent shit from happening but it improves the odds that it can be stopped. Arguing absolutes makes no sense.

 

[kaz]

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.

They blow themselves up and shoot hundreds of people ... as a recruiting drive ... You are an intellectual powerhouse, Milton.

Oh, and why doe they want to recruit? To blow themselves up and shoot hundreds of people ...

You don't think that blundering into the Middle East with Western troops will play into their hands?
Didn't you learn anything from the Iraq debacle?

Um ... OK? What are you talking about? I oppose Iraq, I oppose Afghanistan, you support politicans who support them.

You are a completely new level of stupid...

 

[Brain357]

Being armed isn't going to prevent shit from happening but it improves the odds that it can be stopped. Arguing absolutes makes no sense.

Well why would France want more guns? This attack on them was a terrible tragedy, but here in the US way more people die just in accidents from guns. The gun solution kills more than the problem. Here you can already carry if you want.

 

[kaz]

Being armed isn't going to prevent shit from happening but it improves the odds that it can be stopped. Arguing absolutes makes no sense.

Well why would France want more guns? This attack on them was a terrible tragedy, but here in the US way more people die just in accidents from guns. The gun solution kills more than the problem. Here you can already carry if you want.

The point, Holmes, is you keep telling us if we follow your rules, criminals won't get guns. Yet in france, they followed your rules ... and the terrorists ... got guns ... The obvious, calling the clueless. Explain how your rules will work ... when they don't work ....

 

[Brain357]

Being armed isn't going to prevent shit from happening but it improves the odds that it can be stopped. Arguing absolutes makes no sense.

Well why would France want more guns? This attack on them was a terrible tragedy, but here in the US way more people die just in accidents from guns. The gun solution kills more than the problem. Here you can already carry if you want.

The point, Holmes, is you keep telling us if we follow your rules, criminals won't get guns. Yet in france, they followed your rules ... and the terrorists ... got guns ... The obvious, calling the clueless. Explain how your rules will work ... when they don't work ....

Well Holmes, I don't have any rules. So not entirely sure what you are talking about. But I'm sure if you looked at the number of people killed by guns in France it is still dramatically lower then here, even with this tragedy. So Holmes, I don't see why they would want more dead like us. We probably have more accidently killed by guns each year than France has intentionally killed.

 

[idb]

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.

They blow themselves up and shoot hundreds of people ... as a recruiting drive ... You are an intellectual powerhouse, Milton.

Oh, and why doe they want to recruit? To blow themselves up and shoot hundreds of people ...

You don't think that blundering into the Middle East with Western troops will play into their hands?
Didn't you learn anything from the Iraq debacle?

Um ... OK? What are you talking about? I oppose Iraq, I oppose Afghanistan, you support politicans who support them.

You are a completely new level of stupid...

What are you talking about?
Are you having trouble following the discussion?