If the Parisians were carrying...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • bingley

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 11, 2011
    2,295
    48
    Are you sure that's not a spoof site? Looking at the other very PC stories featured there and figured it's an Onion clone...

    You can do a quick search yourself and you'll find the facts confirmed by major news sources.
     

    LP1

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 8, 2010
    1,825
    48
    Friday Town
    Sad but likely true. As it stands today, there is no America with the political will to prevent this.

    Much of the public's appetite for action has been destroyed by over a decade of war, most of which was undertaken under false pretenses. Not to mention that following the bad advice of the neocons created the circumstances for much of the current mayhem.
     

    cobber

    Parrot Daddy
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Sep 14, 2011
    10,225
    149
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    You can do a quick search yourself and you'll find the facts confirmed by major news sources.

    Ah, like CNN, Reuters, and the other American majors? Then it must be the truth...


    Much of the public's appetite for action has been destroyed by over a decade of war, most of which was undertaken under false pretenses. Not to mention that following the bad advice of the neocons created the circumstances for much of the current mayhem.

    Short version: it's Bush's fault. But -1 for not mentioning "Teabaggers".

    So e.g. the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was the "neocons'" fault? Bill Clinton must be relieved...
     

    LP1

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 8, 2010
    1,825
    48
    Friday Town
    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?

    Crowded movie theater in Colorado - despite a "no guns" policy, I'll bet that several in the theater were armed. How many fired back?
    Binkley's - Good chance that someone was armed; how many took action?
    KS&E - At least one person was armed, maybe more. How many took action?

    Sure, it's better to be prepared for self defense, but the reality is that a) the likelihood of armed resistance did not deter any of these crimes, and none of them were motivated by ideology, b) the attackers used the element of surprise and had superior firepower, and c) the situations were chaotic, making it difficult for one to know when/who to shoot.

    On top of that, the attackers in France were prepared to die.

    We should be prepared, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that a few people with handguns and a spare magazine or two will prevent this kind of thing.
     

    BE Mike

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Jul 23, 2008
    7,536
    113
    New Albany
    Crowded movie theater in Colorado - despite a "no guns" policy, I'll bet that several in the theater were armed. How many fired back?
    Binkley's - Good chance that someone was armed; how many took action?
    KS&E - At least one person was armed, maybe more. How many took action?

    Sure, it's better to be prepared for self defense, but the reality is that a) the likelihood of armed resistance did not deter any of these crimes, and none of them were motivated by ideology, b) the attackers used the element of surprise and had superior firepower, and c) the situations were chaotic, making it difficult for one to know when/who to shoot.

    On top of that, the attackers in France were prepared to die.

    We should be prepared, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that a few people with handguns and a spare magazine or two will prevent this kind of thing.
    Your answer to terrorist attacks is that armed civilians cannot make a difference? If you really think that, then there is no need to carry. You can just be one of the sheeple. You've made some assumptions that may or may not be true, regarding people being armed in mass shooting incidents. You seem to ignore the motor officer in Garland, TX who killed two terrorists with his handgun, while the attackers were armed with rifles. How about a fairly recent attack in Israel where a person armed with a handgun took out a terrorist? Even a little chance to counter the evil, is better than no chance. The average person who carries probably isn't prepared to respond effectively, but there are a few who have received enough training to neutralize an attack. In a previous post, you seemingly place some responsibility on terrorism on us. Really? No doubt that some different political decisions may have helped to contain terrorists, but our country is in no way responsible for the cowardly atrocities that have occurred.
     

    KittySlayer

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 29, 2013
    6,473
    77
    Northeast IN
    Crowded movie theater in Colorado - despite a "no guns" policy, I'll bet that several in the theater were armed. How many fired back?

    Based on the movie, the time and the crowd I saw in the news afterwards I am not so sure that "several" would have been armed. I bet you would have had a hard time finding a couple of people with flashlights in the dark theater, much less a weapon.

    Concealed carry is much more frequent than many people believe. With over 4 percent of the adult population in Colorado having concealed handgun permits, a couple hundred adults in Cinemark’s movie theater #9 means that there is an extremely high probability that at least one adult would have a permit.

    So based on general population a questionable statistic from a Google search would indicate one(1) gun but I don't believe the crowd at this movie would have been reflective of the general CO population.
     

    dusty88

    Master
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 11, 2014
    3,179
    83
    United States
    Crowded movie theater in Colorado - despite a "no guns" policy, I'll bet that several in the theater were armed. How many fired back?
    Binkley's - Good chance that someone was armed; how many took action?
    KS&E - At least one person was armed, maybe more. How many took action?

    Sure, it's better to be prepared for self defense, but the reality is that a) the likelihood of armed resistance did not deter any of these crimes, and none of them were motivated by ideology, b) the attackers used the element of surprise and had superior firepower, and c) the situations were chaotic, making it difficult for one to know when/who to shoot.

    On top of that, the attackers in France were prepared to die.

    We should be prepared, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that a few people with handguns and a spare magazine or two will prevent this kind of thing.

    this goes a lot to choices vs training and whether or not you can figure out what the situation calls for

    Anyone armed at Binkleys might have figured out he was going to lose if he started firing; those robbers wanted money, not necessarily deaths.

    In hijackings of decades ago, hijackers would often at least claim they would allow the passengers to land safely if certain demands were met. I think that the 9/11 hijackings were largely successful because people thought "cooperate" was in their best interest. The passengers of one plane figured out these guys intended suicide, and then they took action.

    A similar realization (and adjustment to training protocol) would have to kick in if you are in the presence of terrorists. Can you identify that situation and take action before it is too late? I don't know.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,863
    113
    Merrillville
    They lost a tad more that 200k military wise. We lost double than is less time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country

    .... .... .... .... .Total Deaths... ...% pop.
    WWI France.... 1.7 million. ... ... 4.3
    WWII France... 117 thousand ... 0.1
    WWI US.... .... 600 thousand ... 1.4
    WWII US .... .. 419 thousand ... 0.3
    (estimates are rounded and averaged)

    I have looked at total deaths. If you die in a prison camp, or of starvation, military or civilian, it still counts as a death.
    Your number 200 thousand came from military deaths only, and from WWII only. My statement addressed WWI and WWII.
    Your number 200 thousand would still be a higher percentage of population than ours.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country

    .... .... .... .... .Total Deaths... ...% pop.
    WWI France.... 1.7 million. ... ... 4.3
    WWII France... 117 thousand ... 0.1
    WWI US.... .... 600 thousand ... 1.4
    WWII US .... .. 419 thousand ... 0.3
    (estimates are rounded and averaged)

    I have looked at total deaths. If you die in a prison camp, or of starvation, military or civilian, it still counts as a death.
    Your number 200 thousand came from military deaths only, and from WWII only. My statement addressed WWI and WWII.
    Your number 200 thousand would still be a higher percentage of population than ours.

    It still counts as a death, yes, but when you look at massive numbers of those killed (non-military) in camps or summarily executed, how can one not think "sheeple?" It's one thing to die fighting, or even simply resisting. It quite another to be led to slaughter.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,863
    113
    Merrillville
    It still counts as a death, yes, but when you look at massive numbers of those killed (non-military) in camps or summarily executed, how can one not think "sheeple?" It's one thing to die fighting, or even simply resisting. It quite another to be led to slaughter.

    Well, give me a minute to make the chart with military only deaths.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,863
    113
    Merrillville
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country


    .... .... .... .... .All Military Deaths.. Total pop.. .. % of pop.
    WWI France.... 1.4 million. ... ..... 40 million ... 2.9
    WWII France... 210 thousand ... . 42 million ... 0.5
    WWI US.... .... 117 thousand ... .. 92 million ... 0.1
    WWII US .... .. 407 thousand ... .. 131 million . 0.3
    (estimates are rounded and averaged)

    I had to use the total population to calculate %, because I did not have the size of the military force available.
     

    Doug

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    69   0   0
    Sep 5, 2008
    6,515
    149
    Indianapolis
    Any discussion of armed response must include an understanding of how the American media will report it.

    If ANY armed civilians are present and ONE or more non-terrorist is injured or killed by a terrorist, it proves that armed civilians are ineffective at stopping terrorist attacks.

    If ANY armed civilian fires a weapon and any non-terrorist is injured or killed as a result, even if the terrorist was using that person as a shield, it proves that armed civilians are more dangerous that terrorists.

    OOPS! Please substitute "workplace violence perpetrator" for "terrorist" in the above sentences.
     

    LP1

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 8, 2010
    1,825
    48
    Friday Town
    Your answer to terrorist attacks is that armed civilians cannot make a difference? If you really think that, then there is no need to carry. You can just be one of the sheeple. You've made some assumptions that may or may not be true, regarding people being armed in mass shooting incidents. You seem to ignore the motor officer in Garland, TX who killed two terrorists with his handgun, while the attackers were armed with rifles. How about a fairly recent attack in Israel where a person armed with a handgun took out a terrorist? Even a little chance to counter the evil, is better than no chance. The average person who carries probably isn't prepared to respond effectively, but there are a few who have received enough training to neutralize an attack. In a previous post, you seemingly place some responsibility on terrorism on us. Really? No doubt that some different political decisions may have helped to contain terrorists, but our country is in no way responsible for the cowardly atrocities that have occurred.

    Your reading comprehension skills need some work.
     

    cosermann

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Aug 15, 2008
    8,372
    113
    Might it have made a difference? Depends on a lot of factors. .

    Here's one example where 1 man with a revolver DID make a difference. Charl van Wyk put 4 terrorists armed with AKs, grenades, and "petrol bombs" to flight with his .38 snub nosed revolver.

    There were significant casualties, but they undoubtedly have been much higher (at that church, AND at another church they had planned to attack, but aborted after van Wyk's resistance) had it not been for the actions of 1 good armed man.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_James_Church_massacre

    http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/70372/
     

    daddyusmaximus

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 98.8%
    82   1   0
    Aug 21, 2013
    8,508
    113
    Remington
    I cannot conceive an idea of me being unarmed when I could legally be armed. Same way that I could not ever imagine a time when I would be too frightened to act. In the past when confronted by an armed attack (wartime only, no civilian shooting experience as of yet) I never freaked out more than a split second before I got pissed and returned fire. I seem to almost always have some stupid scenario going on in my head. What if this, what if that... This is a copy of a post I just made earlier on another forum where they were talking about armed response.



    I have thought about this type of attack for many years. I have seen what these people are capable of and have never been able to shake it. I'm guessing that most people who arm themselves think about what they would do if in a certain situation. Even if they don't train for it, they probably think about it from time to time. (better that the average sheep) That's one of my problems, I can't stop thinking about **** like this. And yes, every time something bad goes down, it gets to me. I feel that if you are going to go so far as to arm yourself, you need to be thinking about, and training for, the use of your weapon.

    From what I have seen on police reaction to an active shooter(s) they tend to not be in the area at the time. First thing is baring law enforcement being present, you're looking at several minutes for the first 911 call to get through and them to respond. The first guy there will typically wait for at least some back up to arrive rather than charge in alone. For the sake of argument, I'm thinking we got 7 to 10 minutes before the first rescue attempt is made by law enforcement. (here in America, in a major city, longer in a rural area due to drive times) Many of the venues these days are searching the patrons as they enter, so that screws up your chance to carry, though it may speed up the reporting of the shooting if someone lives long enough to get a call made.

    I carry everywhere I legally can. I carry a 1911 and 2 spare mags. I'll have 25 tries to put a .45 slug where it will do the most good.

    I practice with my carry gun more than most people probably do. Not near as much as I'd like due to the cost of ammo, but I'll call myself "above average". (only because so many just strap it on and feel they're good)

    Now that I'm supposedly "ready" something kicks off... I'm like anyone else in that my first reaction will surely be "holy ****!" Unless I spot the shooters before due to something they do, good chance I will freak for a second. However, once I realize what is happening, there is almost no way armed confrontation is not going to happen. I am already dealing with combat related issues, so there is just no way in hell I will be able to live with myself if I don't act. I just don't have a choice. Even if I were with my family, I would send them running while I cover their retreat. It is very true that a handgun up against a rifle is a bad bet, but we are not talking about long engagement distances in a public venue. Any typical mall or public setting will have the shooter within handgun range, or there will be aneasy way out. I won't even worry about being plugged by an LEO for the first 5 or 10 minutes, so it's pretty much "game on".

    1. Arm yourself at every opportunity.
    2. Practice as much as possible with your chosen weapon in many scenarios.
    3. Have the ****ing willpower to reach down deep and do something like you got a pair.

    Living with myself as a coward is not living... just can't do it. Sorry, but I'm one of those guys that are gonna talk about what I'd actually do. It helps to relieve stress, and hopefully wakes some people up to the reality that there is evil in the world. Strange how I always go to the range after some crap like this...

    I wish it would never ever happen, but if it does, I wanna be there.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,863
    113
    Merrillville
    I cannot conceive an idea of me being unarmed when I could legally be armed. Same way that I could not ever imagine a time when I would be too frightened to act. In the past when confronted by an armed attack (wartime only, no civilian shooting experience as of yet) I never freaked out more than a split second before I got pissed and returned fire. I seem to almost always have some stupid scenario going on in my head. What if this, what if that... This is a copy of a post I just made earlier on another forum where they were talking about armed response.



    I have thought about this type of attack for many years. I have seen what these people are capable of and have never been able to shake it. I'm guessing that most people who arm themselves think about what they would do if in a certain situation. Even if they don't train for it, they probably think about it from time to time. (better that the average sheep) That's one of my problems, I can't stop thinking about **** like this. And yes, every time something bad goes down, it gets to me. I feel that if you are going to go so far as to arm yourself, you need to be thinking about, and training for, the use of your weapon.

    From what I have seen on police reaction to an active shooter(s) they tend to not be in the area at the time. First thing is baring law enforcement being present, you're looking at several minutes for the first 911 call to get through and them to respond. The first guy there will typically wait for at least some back up to arrive rather than charge in alone. For the sake of argument, I'm thinking we got 7 to 10 minutes before the first rescue attempt is made by law enforcement. (here in America, in a major city, longer in a rural area due to drive times) Many of the venues these days are searching the patrons as they enter, so that screws up your chance to carry, though it may speed up the reporting of the shooting if someone lives long enough to get a call made.

    I carry everywhere I legally can. I carry a 1911 and 2 spare mags. I'll have 25 tries to put a .45 slug where it will do the most good.

    I practice with my carry gun more than most people probably do. Not near as much as I'd like due to the cost of ammo, but I'll call myself "above average". (only because so many just strap it on and feel they're good)

    Now that I'm supposedly "ready" something kicks off... I'm like anyone else in that my first reaction will surely be "holy ****!" Unless I spot the shooters before due to something they do, good chance I will freak for a second. However, once I realize what is happening, there is almost no way armed confrontation is not going to happen. I am already dealing with combat related issues, so there is just no way in hell I will be able to live with myself if I don't act. I just don't have a choice. Even if I were with my family, I would send them running while I cover their retreat. It is very true that a handgun up against a rifle is a bad bet, but we are not talking about long engagement distances in a public venue. Any typical mall or public setting will have the shooter within handgun range, or there will be aneasy way out. I won't even worry about being plugged by an LEO for the first 5 or 10 minutes, so it's pretty much "game on".

    1. Arm yourself at every opportunity.
    2. Practice as much as possible with your chosen weapon in many scenarios.
    3. Have the ****ing willpower to reach down deep and do something like you got a pair.

    Living with myself as a coward is not living... just can't do it. Sorry, but I'm one of those guys that are gonna talk about what I'd actually do. It helps to relieve stress, and hopefully wakes some people up to the reality that there is evil in the world. Strange how I always go to the range after some crap like this...

    I wish it would never ever happen, but if it does, I wanna be there.

    A lot of people "freeze" because they are presented with an action, that they have never in the past imagined or prepared for.
    Fire, heart attacks, car accidents, shooting, etc. Doesn't matter. They haven't had to do anything in the past, so they don't imagine that they may need to do something in the future.
     
    Top Bottom