If the Parisians were carrying...

[Woobie]

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

Making a 1000 yard cold bore shot at a 10" plate is simple too. You just check your dope for similar conditions, dial your elevation, check the wind, dial or hold over for that, squeeze the trigger and get the hit. Simple.

Combat is not as simple as your terms would make it seem. What is your goal? Where are all the enemies? What are the innocent bystanders doing? On and on. Processing all of this through the reptile brain while going through an adrenaline dump is not particularly easy. Neither is making hits on a two way range.

Yes, it is not calculus. But simple and difficult are not mutually exclusive.

 

[jwh20]

Gingrich thinks that some good guys with guns could have stopped the terrorist attack in Paris:

Newt Gingrich faces criticism for controversial take on Paris... | www.actionnewsjax.com

What do you think? Pre-planned, coordinated attacks by five men with AKs in a crowded space, with some suicide bombers ready to pull the pin...

I prefer to go down fighting, of course, but I think I'll go down in a situation like that even if I'm armed.

It's that same old idea that it's better to die fighting than to die a helpless coward. Liberals/Progressives/Socialists are really fond of saying "just call 911 and wait for the authorities" but that surely was not an option in any situation like this. When faced with evil men intent on killing as many people as possible in their quest to meet their god, the BEST thing you can do is get them there sooner and perhaps prevent them from killing any more and possibly surviving yourself.

It seems the media has forgotten the lesson of Flight 93 on 9/11/2001 where the passengers rushed the hijackers and while all of them perished, who knows how many on the ground were saved by their bold actions? Had they passively waited for "help", not that any help other than an Air Force fighter shooting them out of the sky was possible, that day might have easily been even deadlier than it was. Or even the recent situation in France where the US military men stopped a would-be terrorist on that train.

Evil depends on passivity of those caught in the situation and generally does not have a plan when that part doesn't go as planned!

 

[Woobie]

I agree with everyone that says there is a good chance a good guy with a gun could have made a big difference. There is no way he could have made it worse. Maybe he gets killed right away and makes no impact. But then again he could have killed the guy who would have gone on to kill 40. But there's something else, in my way of thinking. There is no way these SOB's are going to have their way. I'm so pissed off at that point, I'm going to do everything I can to ruin their plan to get their virgins. I want to make it as bad for them as they make it for everyone else. I will consider it a privilege to close with them and send them straight to hell. They might kill me in the process, but one way or the other, one of us is dying, and it will be before we intended when we woke up that morning. Illegitimi non carborundum.

 

[Woobie]

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.

Rep Nazis.

 

[Dead Duck]

Sylvain with a gun would have stopped them.

 

[nakinate]

Rep Nazis.

I gave him +10

 

[Sylvain]

Sylvain with a gun would have stopped them.

I don't know about that, I would like to think that I would try to stop them with or without a gun.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

The difference could have been a gunfight vs a slaughter of unarmed.

The lost lives do not strategically threaten France beyond the psychological impact, nor do they strategically help the savages beyond the psychological and propaganda value.

Change the scenario and let the savages be met with armed resistance and even if the body count stays the exact same, the psychology and propaganda values change, for the better for our friends and to the detriment of our enemies.

To build on what Denny has said, the savages attacked Paris because they are wolves and saw Paris as a flock of sheep. Tonight all through Europe there are young wolves meeting in twos and threes and talking excitedly about what damage they could do with the sheep surrounding them.

 

[Racechase1]

As for whether or not it would have stopped or hindered the attacks in Paris , we'll never know. Being prepared for the next attack is more important at this point. You don't know where or when, but we do know that the diaper heads will attack again. The question is , do you want to die as a sheep at the slaughter? Me I'd prefer to go out with my boots on. I hope I never have to face the situation though, and God help me do what needs to be done if it happens.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Change the scenario and let the savages be met with armed resistance and even if the body count stays the exact same, the psychology and propaganda values change, for the better for our friends and to the detriment of our enemies.

That's a really solid point. How much international news did the d-bags in Texas generate when they showed up at the Draw Mohammed thing and got dropped like sacks of potatoes?

 

[Denny347]

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.

Its the same with US rural areas. Large urban cities contain the most sheep per square mile

 

[Thor]

Europe as a whole does not have a history of private ownership of weapons going back to the middle ages. As an example, the British Home Guard stood up during WWII had to beg guns from American donators because they had none. After the war they then destroyed most of those weapons.

The freedom to defend themselves against the state is a foreign concept to those raised under the shadow of monarchy. It also means the responsibility to defend themselves is left to others.

In a free and armed society folks would have been shooting back at the islamoloons.

Armed Parisians would have to live under a different reality. Their current reality and mindset do not allow armed Parisians.

 

[Denny347]

I don't know about that, I would like to think that I would try to stop them with or without a gun.

United flight 93 stopped their plane from hitting the Capitol building and they were all "unarmed".

 

[OakRiver]

The difference could have been a gunfight vs a slaughter of unarmed.

The lost lives do not strategically threaten France beyond the psychological impact, nor do they strategically help the savages beyond the psychological and propaganda value.

Change the scenario and let the savages be met with armed resistance and even if the body count stays the exact same, the psychology and propaganda values change, for the better for our friends and to the detriment of our enemies.

To build on what Denny has said, the savages attacked Paris because they are wolves and saw Paris as a flock of sheep. Tonight all through Europe there are young wolves meeting in twos and threes and talking excitedly about what damage they could do with the sheep surrounding them.

It isn't as if we haven't seen this before in India, Tunisia, etc.

 

[Arthur Dent]

It isn't as if we haven't seen this before in India, Tunisia, etc.

And none of those places have changed for the better.

 

[Harleyrider_50]

United flight 93 stopped their plane from hitting the Capitol building and they were all "unarmed".

Yup....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-viMzr2nac

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92xVisLjiiQ

 

[Dkamm23]

i believe that in a lot of the shootings people hear about, if there was one decently skilled person carrying, lives could have been saved.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

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?

Is suppressive fire effective against guys that hope they get killed?

 

[IndyGunworks]

One armed person would not have mattered? Then explain why we dropped thousands of single shot .45 ACP pistols into the country in the second great war? Lots of ways for it to play out.... one of them you not being the hero but being able to provide enough distraction to get your loved ones out.

Also, think about this. We live in a country that allows us to talk about the complexities of our own armed involvement in such a situation. When was the last time the citizens of france could have had a similar conversation?

 

[IndyGunworks]

Is suppressive fire effective against guys that hope they get killed?

Maybe it slows them down enough to let TEN more people escape.... I say yes.