If the Parisians were carrying...

[bingley]

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.

 

[printcraft]

Yeah, but you screw up their plan. If you are going down anyway you might as well try to save some others.
There won't be people tweeting "please police raid the hall because they are killing us 1 by 1" <---- happened tonight - no ****.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

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.

 

[Denny347]

Well, Paris is full of sheep, full of them. Armed sheep are worthless if not dangerous. 1 person willing to sacrifice themselves to stop one of the gunman would have saved lives. However, with the number of terrorists and distance between scenes, it would have taken a small army of armed citizens to have stopped this. We are sheep dogs and it is hard to think like a sheep as it is as foreign to us at sheep thinking about us. Answer, NO, not likely.

 

[Denny347]

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.

France has it's hands full with homegrown radical Muslims.

https://news.vice.com/video/intolerance-after-the-violence-paris-gun-attack-dispatch-4

 

[dusty88]

Having some armed citizens in a situation like this could only help. But there's no guarantee you wouldn't get overwhelmed before you could even take out 1 of them.

And these guys weren't slouches; they coordinated multiple attacks at the same time. It's not like they are going to come to the USA and NOT consider the fact we have armed citizens. They are likely to change their MO.

I'd like to think being armed would shut them down, but unfortunately it's not that simple.

Nonetheless..... I do think citizens of other countries are rethinking their strict gun control laws.

 

[cbhausen]

It's simple... Would you rather be armed or not? Would you rather have a few armed citizens or many?

/thread

 

[indykid]

In a theater like setting with the right to keep and bear arms, it would not be only you against the 4 intruders. You would hope that there would be dozens of other armed defenders of freedom to assist and overwhelm the terrorists.

They might have that mythical AK-47 but faced with firepower from every corner of the theater, you would stand a chance of coming out on top, and the world would not know, nor have to mourn over 100 unarmed targets.

 

[Prometheus]

Having some armed citizens in a situation like this could only help. But there's no guarantee you wouldn't get overwhelmed before you could even take out 1 of them.

And these guys weren't slouches; they coordinated multiple attacks at the same time. It's not like they are going to come to the USA and NOT consider the fact we have armed citizens. They are likely to change their MO.

I'd like to think being armed would shut them down, but unfortunately it's not that simple.

Nonetheless..... I do think citizens of other countries are rethinking their strict gun control laws.

Or not. At that draw mohamed event in TX two of them showed up planning just that.... of course they ran into LEO's in the parking lot and showed they weren't that well trained after all.

These guys in Paris tonight, probably the same thing. They had to go "person to person" to take them out. Crowded concert, 100~ dead and they had AK's... not trying to down play the mass murders but imagine a pair of trained guys with AK's going in as opposed to what are usually the lowest common denominator? I'm getting off track though.

I seriously doubt armed citizens would have made anything worse in these attacks. I am fairly confident that armed citizens would have made the "one by one executions" of those trapped much more difficult.

In any case, it's about the individual, not the group and the individual has a right to self defense. No matter where they live or what their government says.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

I'm going to say it's a mix. ISIS has been threatening Jordan, and Jordan responded. There are armored police vehicles and cops with rifles positioned throughout Amman. People are allowed to have guns in their homes, and in some situations in their vehicles. There are checkpoints and searches at the entrances to major buildings like malls. While we can debate where the line between liberty and safety is drawn, it's been bumped toward safety there.

Jordan is closer, so the logistics would have to be easier. Just blending in with the local population would be easier. They've got every motive to target Jordan. Their king is a freaking modern day folk hero among his people for flying bombing missions himself, and they are an active participant against ISIS.

So what's the difference? Perhaps in the response? What will France do? Seriously, I'm not making light of this. What will France's response be? Will it be bombings? Will it be tracking down the perpetrators families and slitting their throats and then dumping their bodies in the streets? Will it be a harshly worded speech at the UN?

There's a reason France was targeted. I would guess the idea it's a softer target than other, closer, logistically simpler, targets were not. The question is...what do you do? There's a real value in having an armed population and a culture of resistance in this situation. France has the history, will they reclaim it? YOU in a concert may not matter much, although in a hostage situation where they aren't aware you are armed you might do more good than you think...but what if 10% of the population were similarly armed? Would the place even be targeted?

 

[miguel]

Front National should get a bump out of this.

Where is Charles Martel when you need him?

 

[KobeBeefKatana]

Terrorism isn't just some jihadist with an AK, it's an idea that spreads its disease into the minds of young and old people alike. It's extremely hard to kill an idea for the simple fact that it effects so much of society, especially today with social media. This could have just as easily happened here in the states last night and you're ignorant if you think otherwise. Guns or no Guns, makes no difference, these people are ready to be immediately ushered to Allahs presence which makes them that much more dangerous. But...that being said, I'm still going to carry a big stick!

 

[Denny347]

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.

 

[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.

Reinforced when you Google French military victories. Recently read a book on WW2 detailing how France surrendered Paris (and its people) to preserve its precious architecture.

...it would have taken a small army of armed citizens to have stopped this...

You mean like a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state?

 

[Denny347]

You mean like a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state?

You won't hear me argue against that.

 

[spec4]

Considering the situation in May, 1940 in France, surrendering Paris was a prudent move. There would have been nothing to gain by defending it against the steamroller Hitler had going at that time.

I truly hope this forum doesn't get loaded with shots at the French.

 

[Birds Away]

If not for the French 1st Army there would have been no Dunkirk. They laid down there lives so that the BEF and some French units could be evacuated. People should know their history before calling a whole nation cowards.

 

[femurphy77]

Considering the situation in May, 1940 in France, surrendering Paris was a prudent move. There would have been nothing to gain by defending it against the steamroller Hitler had going at that time.

I truly hope this forum doesn't get loaded with shots at the French.

This! It's easy to sit back 75 years later and attack the people of the time. Hitler had it going on and would have assumed control of all of Europe if the United States hadn't stepped in. Paris would have been leveled, hundreds of thousands more would have died and he'd have moved on. London would have eventually fallen, etc. etc.

 

[kalboy]

Front National should get a bump out of this.

Where is Charles Martel when you need him?

Or perhaps Charles Mangin.

 

[nakinate]

If not for the French 1st Army there would have been no Dunkirk. They laid down there lives so that the BEF and some French units could be evacuated. People should know their history before calling a whole nation cowards.

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