If the Parisians were carrying...

[Kutnupe14]

If Parisians were carrying, there'd lots of guns to pick up.

 

[ScouT6a]

I second what Kobebeefkatana said, the world is dealing with an ideology here, but it is still made up of individuals. Terrorists exploit the weak, instill fear, disrupt daily lives and wear down people's sense of security.
Armed citizens could not have stopped everything that happened in Paris last night. However, had some of those citizens been armed, they may well have taken out one, even two of the terrorists and shown that they were not ready to be victims and that is how you must approach terrorism.
Had I been in that situation, and I was able to take just one of those bastards out before being ventilated, my life would have been worth it.
Firearms in the hands of citizens are not the sole answer but changing up the sheeple mentality is. I believe that this will only continue to spread around the world and one day, in the not so distant future, we will see attacks like this on U.S. soil again.

 

[KittySlayer]

I have a feeling that most Parisians want nothing to do with guns, even after this. You need to address the WILL to fight and not the tool.

While my poor attempt at humor was a bit too soon after the tragedy I'll go back to the original query.

The French in the recent past have made poor decisions, supported by the attitude of its citizens. Huge influx of immigrants with no plan to integrate them into the country's culture. Such an aversion to weapons that even some members of the police force don't carry guns. People looking to the government as their only means of salvation. No mention yet of any citizen heroes attempting to step forward, only victims trembling in fear waiting for death. News coverage so far has been pretty poor so time will tell when details become available.

 

[churchmouse]

If Parisians were carrying, there'd lots of guns to pick up.

Ha......To soon...???

This entire issue could and should have been foreseen. It was not. Unless it is part of a larger agenda.

 

[DRob]

You carry a gun. Do you really have much of a choice?

 

[OutdoorDad]

Without the French we may very well be under British rule today. They are not a nation of cowards.

True.
Bashing the French is a fun pastime. I've enjoyed it greatly. But you speak the truth.

There are a hundred or more towns and villes named after Lafayette.

I'm resolved to hold off on French bashing for a while.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

No. things like this aren't so simple to say "it's because they don't have guns!"

It's proximity to the middle east. It's open borders. It's not all about guns.

Me being in that concert with my little Glock 23 wouldn't stop 4 terrorists with bombs on their belts and AKs. I'd die a hero's death (if someone lived to tell my story), and they'd continue to kill 80-100 people.

You alone may not stop 4 or more terrorists, but if only 10% of that crowd were armed and ready, the body count would have been significantly lower. Many factors contribute to the attack taking place, and it probably could not be prevented in a free society, but the lack of only one thing, an instant armed response, allowed it to be so successful.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

This entire issue could and should have been foreseen. It was not. Unless it is part of a larger agenda.

And right on que with the tin foil here I am .

This nonsense isn't an accident or freak occurrence , it's planned .

They beat people down with their PC BS and make the ******* scared to say what's real for fear of being labeled one thing or the other .

They create chaos in the easiest countries to produce refugees then flood other countries to destroy their homogeneous cultures .

Guess what comes next , NWO and global control .

To quote Chuck D of PE , " This **** ain't about no ******* accident " .

It will happen here .

 

[Sylvain]

If those ****ers come to the French countryside they will have a surprise.
Millions of French people are armed, mainly hunters with high power rifles and shotguns but also sport shooters.

 

[IndyGlockMan]

Paris is basically a giant gun free zone, so I think it was just a matter of time before they had attacks like this. England or Germany is probably next.
Not sure armed citizens could have made a difference yesterday, but the thought of the public being armed is a big deterrent for criminals and terrorists.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Has anyone considered what a mess it would have been if they were armed like us , or what happens when it happens here ?

Most folks have never been a soldier or have been in really chaotic situations like that before , when **** gets real people are dumb , panicky animals .

You take a concert hall full of people enjoying themselves and halfway through it introduce chaos , now consider if they were armed like Hoosiers where 1 in every 6-7 of us ( I think ) are armed and the shooting starts .

The chaos is magnified , who's shooting who ? How do you identify your targets if everyone's dressed in civilian clothes ?

 

[jsharmon7]

I don't think there is any question that armed citizens would have at least slowed them down. Stopped the attack completely? Maybe not. But if you took out even one of them you're preventing that person from killing at least a few innocent people. I don't consider myself a high speed operator by any stretch, but I will go down fighting. My greatest fear is being deliberately executed. I don't care if 10 guys have guns on me, I'm going down trying to rush them or something.

2ADMNLOVER makes a great point, but I'd rather risk the chaos than see people killed like farm animals.

 

[OakRiver]

Being armed is the difference between having a fighting chance to escape, and just relying upon sheer luck.

Part of me also thinks that had this happened on US soil (and I sincerely hope it never does) then we would hear the usual worn out "a good guy with a gun didn't stop a bad guy with a gun".

 

[rbane3]

I've been pretty lazy about applying for my LTCH. I hunt regularly, I am at the range as often as I can be. I train.. but I don't carry. It's dumb.

My family has recently grown. My SO and I had a son a month ago. She has a two year old daughter. I've never felt the desire to carry as strongly as I do when I'm with them... until last night. My application is submitted.

 

[BE Mike]

Take out the ones with the AK's who are shooting innocent people. What's difficult about that?

 

[dusty88]

If those ****ers come to the French countryside they will have a surprise.
Millions of French people are armed, mainly hunters with high power rifles and shotguns but also sport shooters.

Just like here I guess.

And I think if you targeted a country/western concert in the US you would get a lot more resistance than at most other forms of music. Just sayin'

 

[OakRiver]

Take out the ones with the AK's who are shooting innocent people. What's difficult about that?

Well if we ignore;
Distance
Surprise
Comparative firepower
Intervening cover
Fleeing people obscuring your shot
Coordinated attackers
And many other factors besides then it seems very easy

 

[dusty88]

Take out the ones with the AK's who are shooting innocent people. What's difficult about that?

the difficult part that first occurs to me is that the bad guys don't care who they hit. You would be trying to get close enough to get a shot on a bad guy. But once you fire his buds don't care if they hose the other 20 people around you. It's a lot harder to be a good guy than a bad guy.

 

[Dead Duck]

One good guy with one little gun could have saved a lot of the victims.
Yes - I'm that confident.

-The bullets in each of the terrorists guns were meant to kill multiple people. Stopping even one of the gunman would stop that gun from firing.
-The suicide vests they wore were meant to kill multiple people. Stopping even one of the bombers could stop that bomb from going off.
I know, I know - shooting at a suicide bomber could make him explode...........Ya, so what, he's plans to blow up anyway. There is no downside on trying.

Saying that too many citizens with guns shooting all over the place would be worse than letting the dirtbags do what they want, well at least they'd be doing something rather than waiting their turn like sheep. Accidentally hitting innocents in a stadium full of people? Bummer, do it anyway and hope for the best. The term "Collateral Damage" is a term in the dictionary for a reason, it happens, live with it.

One good guy with One gun would have made all the difference. Imagine what two good guys with guns would have done.....or three?

Suppressive fire? Anyone?

 

[dusty88]

Saying that too many citizens with guns shooting all over the place would be worse than letting the dirtbags do what they want, well at least they'd be doing something rather than waiting their turn like sheep. Accidentally hitting innocents in a stadium full of people? Bummer, do it anyway and hope for the best. The term "Collateral Damage" is a term in the dictionary for a reason, it happens, live with it.

Good point, though the idea of accepting collateral damage is pretty much the opposite of what us citizens train for and think about. You'd have to make a decision to re-adjust your mentality. Maybe that would come easily at such a moment, I don't know. I think it would come easily if they were actively shooting, in the same way that it would come easily if a shooter were in the process of rapidly shooting a bunch of children.

The thing is, no one in those situations knew there were other attacks going on. And does someone in the concert venue even know there are multiple other guys there? I guess that depends on the setup. Point being, if you have a lone gunman and he's still in the process of talking and lining people up, at that point I'm still going to go cautiously.

The best way to save people might be if you could warn them to start running a specific direction when you started shooting. Gets them out of your way plus at least maybe a few people make it out before you get hit with return fire.

I dunno. Another time to armchair quarterback but not really know what it would be like.....