Would it have made any difference in Paris if carry were allowed

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nom de Forum

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
2,769
Location
Arizona
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.


Mod Note: Discussion split in General and S&T line moved here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nom de Forum said:
If every person present during that attack had been armed there would have been little difference in the number of casualties.
Click to expand...

So if hundreds of people at the concert were armed, nothing would have changed given that there were, I believe, 3 attackers there? :confused: I'm not going to get into what if scenarios and I certainly don't have answers as to how we stop terrorists, but this statement is a little bit of a stretch.
 
If every person present during that attack had been armed there would have been little difference in the number of casualties.
Click to expand...

That's an over-reaching statement since some of the crowd would fired towards the terrs and disrupted the plan enough to allow many more of the customers to have escaped. Notice I say "disrupted" instead of stopped since I don't think you'd have stopped some serious lose of life with explosive vests and machineguns involved. Even here we don't see people shooting and stopping the mass murderers in theaters and public speaking places. Not in AZ and not in LA and not in OR.

If Trump wants to sell that idea to an adoring crowd we can't be surprised if they all cheer, but it doesn't help him and it doesn't help us to make such statements before all the blood is washed away.
 
Last edited:
Reading ...

If every person present during that attack had been armed
there would have been little difference in the number of casualties.
Click to expand...

mrspocksays.jpg
 
The last reports I heard said that the gunmen at The Bataclan fired on the crowd for about 20 minutes, killing one patron at a time. Are you seriously trying to say that a couple of armed people in the crowd would not have made any difference? I find that argument seriously flawed.
 
I knew my post would provoke a strong reaction.

Tom J - So if hundreds of people at the concert were armed, nothing would have changed given that there were, I believe, 3 attackers there?  I'm not going to get into what if scenarios and I certainly don't have answers as to how we stop terrorists, but this statement is a little bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...

My statement really is not much of a cognitive stretch if you examine the details of what happened.

HSO - That's an over-reaching statement since some rounds probably out of the crowd would have come towards the terrs and disrupted the plan enough to allow many more of the customers to have escaped. Notice I say "disrupted" instead of stopped since I don't think you'd have stopped some serious lose of life with explosive vests and machineguns involved. Even here we don't see people shooting and stopping the mass murderers in theaters and public speaking places. Not in AZ and not in LA and not in OR.
Click to expand...

Now that is an example of thinking more realistically, but not still not fully perceiving the reality of the situation.

AStone - Mr. Spock says your logic is seriously flawed.
Click to expand...

My thinking behind my statement is very logical but obviously is at this point incomprehensible to you. I will help you comprehend the logic.

danez71 - I think if every one there was armed there would have been a far less chance of it being attacked in the 1st place.
Click to expand...

Why would everyone being armed matter? The terrorists don’t care if their victims are armed because they expect to die, know they cannot be stopped from causing at the very least a few deaths and have a very favorable chance of causing many deaths.

Steel Horse Rider - Nom De Forum does not use logic as I believe he has an agenda. 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...

I suppose you would like to report me to the HUAC for being a dangerous influence because I am not adhering to extreme rightwing Pro-gun opinion. You are outta luck on that opportunity since the committee was disbanded in 1975 after decades of disrupting and ruining the lives of many non-rightwing Americans. These non-suicidal terrorists you mention being discouraged are so small in number that not many attacks will be stopped by 25% armed populace. The majority of attacks are being made by terrorists who are by a high percentage prepared to commit suicide to succeed and those that are not realize their odds of survival are worse than 50/50 but still attack.

Even if every civilian in Paris was armed the terrorist has the advantage of surprise and a target rich environment of panicking people. Even if some civilians remain cool headed and draw their weapon they have to locate the terrorist amongst a sea of screaming people running in multiple directions and often in front of the muzzles of the cool headed civilians. Meanwhile the terrorists don’t even have to aim to make hits, they could even run with the crowd shooting or lie down on the floor amongst the first bodies and still be making hits while being a very difficult target to hit and have every shot that missed them hit a civilian. Then there are the bombs (the most casualty producing weapon). It is very doubtful an armed citizen will be able to prevent from exploding. The terrorist need only the few seconds provided by shock and awe of the attack to delay response for them to succeed and know they may have many more seconds to increase the magnitude of their success. As I wrote earlier the terrorists if not fully expecting to die by suicide know they have very little chance of survival and yet they still attack. They will not be discouraged from attacking armed civilians they will just incorporate that situation into their plan of attack. If a little old Palestinian woman can be motivated to attack an armed Israeli office with a kitchen knife what makes anyone think young male zealots will be deterred by civilians packing pistols? Don't think for a minute Paris is going to quickly be transformed to have all the security check points that Israel has and that one on one attacks will thwarted by armed civilians. It is a near impossibility Paris will ever be like an Israeli city and will always be vulnerable regardless of civilians being armed or unarmed.
 
Last edited:
medalguy said:
The last reports I heard said that the gunmen at The Bataclan fired on the crowd for about 20 minutes, killing one patron at a time. Are you seriously trying to say that a couple of armed people in the crowd would not have made any difference? I find that argument seriously flawed.
Click to expand...

A few armed people in the crowd would probably only move-up the time in which a suicide bomb is detonated. I don't know how familiar you are with Claymore mines but they not even close to being as casualty producing as a terrorist suicide bomb vest containing more pounds of explosive and projectiles.

As I posted previously: 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.
 
Nom de Forum said:
I knew my post would provoke a strong reaction.



My statement really is not much of a cognitive stretch if you examine the details of what happened.



Now that is an example of thinking more realistically, but not still not fully perceiving the reality of the situation.



My thinking behind my statement is very logical but obviously is at this point incomprehensible to you. I will help you comprehend the logic.



Why would everyone being armed matter? The terrorists don’t care if their victims are armed because they expect to die, know they cannot be stopped from causing at the very least a few deaths and have a very favorable chance of causing many deaths.



I suppose you would like to report me to the HUAC for being a dangerous influence because I am not adhering to extreme rightwing Pro-gun opinion. You are outta luck on that opportunity since the committee was disbanded in 1975 after decades of disrupting and ruining the lives of many non-rightwing Americans. These non-suicidal terrorists you mention being discouraged are so small in number that not many attacks will be stopped by 25% armed populace. The majority of attacks are being made by terrorists who are by a high percentage prepared to commit suicide to succeed and those that are not realize their odds of survival are worse than 50/50 but still attack.

Even if every civilian in Paris was armed the terrorist has the advantage of surprise and a target rich environment of panicking people. Even if some civilians remain cool headed and draw their weapon they have to locate the terrorist amongst a sea of screaming people running in multiple directions and often in front of the muzzles of the cool headed civilians. Meanwhile the terrorists don’t even have to aim to make hits, they could even run with the crowd shooting or lie down on the floor amongst the first bodies and still be making hits while being a very difficult target to hit and have every shot that missed them hit a civilian. Then there are the bombs (the most casualty producing weapon). It is very doubtful an armed citizen will be able to prevent from exploding. The terrorist need only the few seconds provided by shock and awe of the attack to delay response for them to succeed and know they may have many more seconds to increase the magnitude of their success. As I wrote earlier the terrorists if not fully expecting to die by suicide know they have very little chance of survival and yet they still attack. They will not be discouraged from attacking armed civilians they will just incorporate that situation into their plan of attack. If a little old Palestinian woman can be motivated to attack an armed Israeli office with a kitchen knife what makes anyone think young male zealots will be deterred by civilians packing pistols? Don't think for a minute Paris is going to quickly be transformed to have all the security check points that Israel has and that one on one attacks will thwarted by armed civilians. It is a near impossibility Paris will ever be like an Israeli city and will always be vulnerable regardless of civilians being armed or unarmed.
Click to expand...

No. I'm with Spock. Your liberal intolerance for rational thought incapacitates your logic.

Had several people been armed at Bataclan, fewer people would have died. It's only hard to understand this if you are programmed with anti gun sentiment.
 
Maybe the presence of armed people wouldn't be a perfect solution. Maybe it wouldn't deter truly suicidal terrorists.

But only one of the recent attackers in Paris used a suicide vest. Three more were stopped by police who responded and shot them. Maybe an armed civilian could have shot one as well.
 
Nom de Forum said:
Quote:
danez71 - I think if every one there was armed there would have been a far less chance of it being attacked in the 1st place.
Why would everyone being armed matter?
Click to expand...


Why would everyone being armed matter? The terrorists don’t care if their victims are armed because they expect to die, know they cannot be stopped from causing at the very least a few deaths and have a very favorable chance of causing many
.
Click to expand...


Look at what the terrorist target.

Overwhelmingly soft targets or very lightly guarded targets

They aren't going after military bases.

They go after schools, lightly gaurded airplanes, NY subways, concerts, buses, busy street corner coffee shop/dinner, and dare I say even benghazi.


The terrorists aren't stupid. They go after low hanging fruit.


OTOH, I do agree that even if everyone was armed in the theater, several vest-bomb wearing terrorists could inflict roughly the same carnage.


But if you want to have an intelligent discussion, you can't play ignorant to the fact that they have been targeting relatively soft targets.

Targeting soft targets is Terrorism 101.
 
I don't know how familiar you are with Claymore mines but they not even close to being as casualty producing as a terrorist suicide bomb vest containing more pounds of explosive and projectiles.
Click to expand...

You may want to do some homework before making uneducated statements like this. Do some research on C-4, which is made from the explosive RDX, compare it's detonation velocity to TATP(triacetone triperoxide) used in suicide vests. You might as well research claymore mines and why a shaped charge is more effective than crystalline powder poured into a vest.

Might seem academic to you, but when I see a statement like yours above, it makes me question any "fact" you manufacture.
 
As of October 1, 2015, there have been 2,326 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,856 of these deaths have been the result of hostile action.
Click to expand...

Does Afghanistan have a military with whom we are in combat? I was under the impression that we were fighting terrorists over there. It would appear that the entire might of the US military is incapable of discouraging terrorist attacks on highly armed professional soldiers in Afghanistan.

Perhaps if all US service men and women were packing pistols it would scare the terrorists away even though all those machine guns, tanks, missiles, planes, and artillery have been ineffective at it.

Anyone who believes that a bunch of untrained (or even highly trained) people with handguns is going to make more than a minuscule difference in overall casualties to a surprise attack on civilian targets from dedicated, military armed, suicidal terrorists has about the same ties to reality as fictional characters like Mr. Spock or Superman.
 
Perhaps if all US service men and women were packing pistols it would scare the terrorists away even though all those machine guns, tanks, missiles, planes, and artillery have been ineffective at it.

Anyone who believes that a bunch of untrained (or even highly trained) people with handguns is going to make more than a minuscule difference in overall casualties to a surprise attack on civilian targets from dedicated, military armed, suicidal terrorists has about the same ties to reality as fictional characters like Mr. Spock or Superman.
Click to expand...

The comments above are nothing more than a thinly veiled political opinion statement. Any chance is better than no chance, win or lose...that is unless you value the lives of terrorists more than your own (or your countrymen).

I agree with jerkface11, and Deaf Smith's comments above.
 
Nom de Forum,

It is very doubtful an armed citizen will be able to prevent from exploding. The terrorist need only the few seconds provided by shock and awe of the attack to delay response for them to succeed and know they may have many more seconds to increase the magnitude of their success.
Click to expand...

Except that is not what happened in the Paris attack. From the AP Wire;

"The attackers next stormed the Bataclan concert hall, which was hosting the American rock band Eagles of Death Metal. They opened fire on the panicked audience and took many hostage. As police closed in, three detonated explosive belts, killing themselves, according to Paris police chief Michel Cadot."

http://news.yahoo.com/paris-attacked-police-hunt-accomplices-065411619.html#

It is only after the Police arrived that the terrorists blew themselves up. There was at least a period of several minutes where the primary weapon used was firearms which means citizens & hostages that were armed had a fighting chance to take out the terrorists before they blew themselves and hostages up.

Defending the 2A with talk of stopping a terrorist attack is counter-productive because it lacks credibility.
Click to expand...

Not anymore than you failing to fact check your statement on how the terrorist attack occurred.
 
45_auto said:
Does Afghanistan have a military with whom we are in combat? I was under the impression that we were fighting terrorists over there. It would appear that the entire might of the US military is incapable of discouraging terrorist attacks on highly armed professional soldiers in Afghanistan.

Perhaps if all US service men and women were packing pistols it would scare the terrorists away even though all those machine guns, tanks, missiles, planes, and artillery have been ineffective at it.

Anyone who believes that a bunch of untrained (or even highly trained) people with handguns is going to make more than a minuscule difference in overall casualties to a surprise attack on civilian targets from dedicated, military armed, suicidal terrorists has about the same ties to reality as fictional characters like Mr. Spock or Superman.
Click to expand...



Our military fighting groups of bad guys trying to gain control of a geographical area isn't the same as a few bad guys committing a surprise terrorist attack on civilian bystanders.

You insinuating they are is really off base for any kind of sound analogy.


You also insinuate that it would make a difference but your opinion is that it would be 'miniscule'.


Wouldn't YOU want at least a miniscule chance?
 
RPRNY said:
No. I'm with Spock. Your liberal intolerance for rational thought incapacitates your logic.
Click to expand...

The fact that on this forum Conservatives accuse me of liberal intolerance and elsewhere Liberals accuse me of conservative intolerance reassures me that I am succeeding at challenging the hypocritical and dogmatic thinking of both extremes. Perhaps both extremes will eventually realize the futility and societal destructiveness of intolerant and uncompromising behavior.

Had several people been armed at Bataclan, fewer people would have died. It's only hard to understand this if you are programmed with anti gun sentiment.
Click to expand...

I think you and others reading my first post are so quickly having an emotional reaction that you are failing to comprehend the meaning of one very important qualifying word -

"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."
Click to expand...
 
danez71 said:
Look at what the terrorist target.
Overwhelmingly soft targets or very lightly guarded targets
They aren't going after military bases.
They go after schools, lightly gaurded airplanes, NY subways, concerts, buses, busy street corner coffee shop/dinner, and dare I say even benghazi.
The terrorists aren't stupid. They go after low hanging fruit.
OTOH, I do agree that even if everyone was armed in the theater, several vest-bomb wearing terrorists could inflict roughly the same carnage.
But if you want to have an intelligent discussion, you can't play ignorant to the fact that they have been targeting relatively soft targets.
Targeting soft targets is Terrorism 101.
Click to expand...

Terrorist do not just attack soft targets even if they usually prefer them and their is no reasonable way to turn all the soft targets into hard targets.
 
danez71 said:
Wouldn't YOU want at least a miniscule chance?
Click to expand...

It is not about wanting or not wanting a miniscule chance. Of course we would all want to be armed to have even a miniscule chance. The point is what is and is not effective in preventing significant casualties in an terrorist attack. Reaction from armed citizens is not and in fact preemptive police/military action based on good intelligence collection and analysis is not successful enough.
 
Spoken like a true surrender monkey.

I'd rather die with a gun in my hand fighting for my life than on my knees begging for my life.

Remember the concept behind the Liberator pistol? Shoot the guy with the good gun (or machine gun) and take it.
 
First, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure... Stopping a terrorist attack with military/police before it happens is, of course, best. However, a vaccine isn't a guaranteed clean bill of health...

That being said, if armed citizens wouldn't make a difference in the midst of a terrorist attack, how would armed police showing up make any difference?
 
In the Paris terrorist attacks the explosive used, TATP, is so shock sensitive that it would have been set off by bullets impacting the vest. Since returning fire on the terrorists would have probably set off one or more of the vests there would have been significant loss of life (significant ranges from 10 to 50 in my thinking), but fewer than would have occurred as the terrorists gained complete control and got to the point of hostage negotiations since the crowd would be dispersed and running for the exits instead of consolidated by the terrorists.
 
krimmie said:
You may want to do some homework before making uneducated statements like this. Do some research on C-4, which is made from the explosive RDX, compare it's detonation velocity to TATP(triacetone triperoxide) used in suicide vests. You might as well research claymore mines and why a shaped charge is more effective than crystalline powder poured into a vest.

Might seem academic to you, but when I see a statement like yours above, it makes me question any "fact" you manufacture.
Click to expand...

Krimmie do you really think that TATP is the only explosive terrorists have access to and a history of using? Start by researching Semtex and move on to other explosives known to have been used by terrorists. By the way I can make an improvised shaped charge with a French champagne bottle, the U.S. Army taught me how to do that and other ways to construct a shaped charges of various types. Only the crudest of suicide vest would be lower in casualty producing power than a Claymore mine. Come to think of it, a Claymore could even be taped to the chest of a suicide terrorist.
 
BSA1 said:
Nom de Forum,



Except that is not what happened in the Paris attack. From the AP Wire;

"The attackers next stormed the Bataclan concert hall, which was hosting the American rock band Eagles of Death Metal. They opened fire on the panicked audience and took many hostage. As police closed in, three detonated explosive belts, killing themselves, according to Paris police chief Michel Cadot."

http://news.yahoo.com/paris-attacked-police-hunt-accomplices-065411619.html#

It is only after the Police arrived that the terrorists blew themselves up. There was at least a period of several minutes where the primary weapon used was firearms which means citizens & hostages that were armed had a fighting chance to take out the terrorists before they blew themselves and hostages up.

Not anymore than you failing to fact check your statement on how the terrorist attack occurred.
Click to expand...

Another failure to comprehend a very significant word -

"Thinking our 2A rights would prevent the type of sophisticated terrorist attack the Paris incident was is just not realistic."

I was not limiting to comment to what exactly happened in Paris. The point is that in any civilian reaction scenario to the type of attack using the weapons used in Paris will not result in significantly lower casualties because the civilians are armed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Israeli counter-terrorism techniques
Replies
0
Views
426
Preacherman
P
C
  • Locked
What would happen if a nuclear device was detonated in a major city?
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
ACP
  • Locked
NYT lone terrorist article
Replies
6
Views
1K
Jeff Thomas
J
J
  • Locked
Homeland Insecurity-Training of Guards at Nuclear Arms Plants Inadequate
2
Replies
30
Views
892
fix
F
2
  • Locked
Terrorists Beware
Replies
0
Views
596
2dogs
2
Back
Top