Trump and Paris

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

taliv

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
28,764
Trump is bringing their gun control laws into the conversation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...control-laws-in-paris-contributed-to-tragedy/

while i think their gun control laws violate people's basic right to self defense (regardless of what's written on any piece of paper), this needs to be stated carefully, which I think he has done.

on the one hand, it certainly shows how when guns are outlawed only terrorists will have guns; this isn't a regional problem like US cities chicago, NYC and DC claim. the whole of Europe can have extremely strict laws and it doesn't prevent these situations at all. it's apparently not at all difficult to smuggle full auto rifles in.

and you can argue as Trump states, that it contributes, because someone with a weapon could have slowed them down and prevented some loss of life. given the current counts of over 100 dead and over 300 wounded, if this had happened in Texas, those counts might have been a half or a quarter of that.

but, otoh, we should be careful not to set expectations too high, as there's not really anything you can do with a pistol to stop a concealed explosive vest.
 
Oh Trump. Why couldn't you have just done the dignified thing and shown sympathy for the victims and solidarity with the French and then point out that America is a hard target partly because of our RKBA (in spite of the fact that the citizens of NYC and Chicago are essentially unarmed because of their laws).


Donald Trump says the tough gun control laws in Paris contributed to the high death toll during a series of terrorist attacks on Friday. The attacks, he added, also reveal the danger in allowing Syrian refugees into the country.

"You can say what you want, but if they had guns -- if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry -- it would have been a much, much different situation,"
Click to expand...
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLjsC1qGgKBI0lrMH28EBYuV6UQBEkYZU_CjvXehO_8M-IxDMY.jpg
 
Last edited:
Obviously Obama and his buddies don't wait Til the bodies are cold before giving anti gun speeches any time there's a tragedy here.
I'd prefer everyone give a few days to reflect and mourn but I hardly blame him for striking while the iron is hot
 
BUT

Brian Williams [ yes,that joke ] was worried about the effect the attack 'might' have on the meeting for the ecology.

And yes,anti gun talk is already abounding.

In a country AND city that bans guns ???, did I miss something about criminals & terrorists abiding by ANY law ??.

I dare say that ANYONE running for office ,will NOT bother to attack guns in this FREE country after this.

I could be wrong,but wait & see.
 
scaatylobo said:
Brian Williams [ yes,that joke ] was worried about the effect the attack 'might' have on the meeting for the ecology.

And yes,anti gun talk is already abounding.

In a country AND city that bans guns ???, did I miss something about criminals & terrorists abiding by ANY law ??.

I dare say that ANYONE running for office ,will NOT bother to attack guns in this FREE country after this.

I could be wrong,but wait & see.
Click to expand...
Hillary will. She is so focused she likely will key in on it more so now than ever before.
 
taliv said:
.... I hardly blame him for striking while the iron is hot
Click to expand...

More like a swing and a miss. If you add the deaths from this incident to the total number of deaths by firearm in France for an entire year it will be nowhere near the total number of deaths by firearm in the United States in one year. Thinking our 2A rights would prevent the type of sophisticated terrorist attack the Paris incident was is just not realistic. If every person present during that attack had been armed there would have been little difference in the number of casualties. Terrorists are frequently successful in attacking armed soldiers so armed citizens are not going to reduce attacks or significantly reduce the casualties of attacks. The Anti-gunners will use these facts to laughingly destroy the credibility of Pro-gunners in the media. We should not give them the chance to do so. Preemptive military/police action taken due to good intelligence collection and analysis is the only thing short of eliminating the terrorists' political/religious motivations that will significantly reduce casualties caused by terrorism. Defending the 2A with talk of stopping a terrorist attack is counter-productive because it lacks credibility. The 2A should be defended based on its original and still valid intent.
 
I think if every one there was armed there would have been a far less chance of it being attacked in the 1st place.

France is largely a Gun Free Zone.
 
You do not need 100% of the population to be armed. I think 25% who are armed and proficient would be plenty to discourage all but the suicidal terrorists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by scaatylobo View Post

I dare say that ANYONE running for office ,will NOT bother to attack guns in this FREE country after this.

I could be wrong,but wait & see.
Click to expand...

You should have waited until after the dem debate before making that statement. Clinton and Sanders both went whole hog on gun control.
 
Considering that Israel experiences terror attacks every day, and they are loosening firearm restrictions because it has been proven to be effective in reducing casualties, well, I'm sorry, but I think they might have a little experience to work with. If your theory was right, the Armed Citizen report in the American Rifleman would be a blank page. Terrorists aren't ten feet tall, covered in hair and bullet proof. They start with the advantage of surprise and firepower, for certain, but many attackers do the same in many situations. Recall the store owner using his AR-15 against how many attackers?
The LOGICAL thing to look at is the how unlikely it would be for any of the concert goers to be armed, even in the US. See, that was a California death metal band playing - what do you suspect the average age of the attendee was? I would have hoped for better security, but they chose that target well.
 
Steel Horse Rider said:
You do not need 100% of the population to be armed. I think 25% who are armed and proficient would be plenty to discourage all but the suicidal terrorists.
Click to expand...
Ahh, but they were suicidal terrorists. Last I heard most blew themselves up but all were dead.

Scary.
 
Please understand and accept that it really doesn't matter to the socialist caretaker elites in France and elsewhere how many disarmed & utterly defenseless people are made to suffer for their morally bankrupt and untenable policies.

Always bear in mind that ideological dominance and the power to force the masses to bend to their will always trump everything else.

Pikums said:
Never heard of Eagles of Death Metal. But I guess everyone knows who they are now.
Click to expand...

The moniker is actually a satirical reference to the popular 1970s era band Eagles, who are perhaps best known for the song Hotel California.
 
Conversation is academic (and can spin in an endless circle), but I still think a fighting chance is better than no chance. Can't help but to believe that more people being armed, means more of a chance of stopping an attacker. Could armed resistance fail? Of course, but so what. It would still be better than not being able to resist. Commonsense, and an understanding of Natural Rights are missing in anyone suggesting otherwise. In fact, I'd be overwhelmed with joy to hear a sitting President in one of these situations, go on air, and encourage Americans to utilize their 2nd Amendment rights to help protect themselves, and by doing so also remind terrorists that they are not dealing with a bunch of people willing to be killed without a fight.
 
Last edited:
hso said:
Oh Trump. Why couldn't you have just done the dignified thing and shown sympathy for the victims and solidarity with the French and then point out that America is a hard target partly because of our RKBA (in spite of the fact that the citizens of NYC and Chicago are essentially unarmed because of their laws).



View attachment 735621
Click to expand...
I'm not a Trump supporter(I prefer Reubio) BUT he is right. CCW won't stop terrorism but it can mitigate the damage they do.

Pity so many here look for the speck in Trump 's eye but don't see the wood beam in theirs.

Deaf
 
Deaf Smith,

Trump's timing was deaf. He acted like someone that isn't expecting to be president, but as a spoiler that won't have to face an opponent. If he'd have just said "Our hearts are with the people of Paris and our hands ready to help France obliterate these terrorists, these cowards.", he'd have sounded like he could fit the office. He could have even said, "Those of us in Texas tonight know what happens to ISIS terrorists, they're shot down before they get parked!" He just fumbled the moment and the message.
 
Trumps words, or Obama's words that morning stating that Isis is contained...Trump fan or not, our current officeholder sure seems inept when it comes to choosing his words carefully.
 
Doug S said:
Conversation is academic (and can spin in an endless circle), but I still think a fighting chance is better than no chance. Can't help but to believe that more people being armed, means more of a chance of stopping an attacker. Could armed resistance fail? Of course, but so what. It would still be better than not being able to resist. Commonsense, and an understanding of Natural Rights are missing in anyone suggesting otherwise. In fact, I'd be overwhelmed with joy to hear a sitting President in one of these situations, go on air, and encourage Americans to utilize their 2nd Amendment rights to help protect themselves, and by doing so also remind terrorists that they are not dealing with a bunch of people willing to be killed without a fight.
Click to expand...
Remember years ago when there was a series of violent rapes happening in Florida? The governor went on TV and advised women to buy a gun and get training on how to use it.

Not only did the rapes go away.......all violent crime dropped instantly. Just sayin'....
 
Forget about playing the hero card and just boil it down to an individual based argument.

Does having a sidearm increase my chances of providing a cover fire that may allow me to maneuver myself and my family the heck out of dodge?

Compared to cowering under a restaurant table hoping the terrorists run out of ammo before putting a bullet in the back of your and your loved ones heads?
 
Remember years ago when there was a series of violent rapes happening in Florida? The governor went on TV and advised women to buy a gun and get training on how to use it.

Not only did the rapes go away.......all violent crime dropped instantly. Just sayin'....
Click to expand...

Nice to know that there is some out there who can read the writing on the wall.
 
Nom de Forum said:
More like a swing and a miss. If you add the deaths from this incident to the total number of deaths by firearm in France for an entire year it will be nowhere near the total number of deaths by firearm in the United States in one year. Thinking our 2A rights would prevent the type of sophisticated terrorist attack the Paris incident was is just not realistic. If every person present during that attack had been armed there would have been little difference in the number of casualties. Terrorists are frequently successful in attacking armed soldiers so armed citizens are not going to reduce attacks or significantly reduce the casualties of attacks. The Anti-gunners will use these facts to laughingly destroy the credibility of Pro-gunners in the media. We should not give them the chance to do so. Preemptive military/police action taken due to good intelligence collection and analysis is the only thing short of eliminating the terrorists' political/religious motivations that will significantly reduce casualties caused by terrorism. Defending the 2A with talk of stopping a terrorist attack is counter-productive because it lacks credibility. The 2A should be defended based on its original and still valid intent.
Click to expand...
thinking that shooting at unarmed people will result in the same outcome as shooting at armed people is not realistic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Article: Five Fast Gun Reforms President Trump Will Sign Into Law
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Robert
Robert
A
  • Locked
Article: TRUMP RELEASES HIS PLAN FOR 2ND AMENDMENT… LEAVES MILLIONS FURIOUS
Replies
14
Views
2K
hso
hso
jmace57
  • Locked
Interesting article from the Washington Post today
Replies
2
Views
645
old lady new shooter
O
V
  • Locked
Norway tragedy: politics proposing further gun control laws
2 3
Replies
65
Views
3K
rbernie
rbernie
G
  • Locked
I'm so indignant right now!
Replies
12
Views
710
Pulse
P
Back
Top