"France-Style Attack Would’ve Been Worse in US Because Guns"

Be right back, buying a RPG at a gun show with no background check...

They know, they arent that stupid. It's worse.

They know that many others dont know, and purposely seek to mis-inform them.

They know, they arent that stupid. It's worse.

They know that many others dont know, and purposely seek to mis-inform them.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but no -- I disagree. They ARE that stupid.

I've known quite a few journalists. They think they know it all and that it's their duty to say so ... but they aren't intentionally misinforming the populace.

I believe in educating the media, one reporter or journalist at a time. Locally, we've taken several newspaper reporters and some radio guys to the range -- they had fun, but more importantly, we were able to educate them about gun laws in our state.

Anyway, I doubt that the staffs of The Onion (Chicago, Ill.), Mad Magazine (Manhattan, NY) and The Harvard Lampoon (Cambridge, Mass.) are allowed to carry guns. I also doubt that many of them want to.

Ivory tower tyrant.

Cee Zee said:

But the threats aren't limited to publishers. They are attacking citizens of all stripes in cities all over the US not to mention the rest of the world. We do get to carry guns thank goodness and some of us do want to.

Click to expand...

But the threats aren't limited to publishers. They are attacking citizens of all stripes in cities all over the US not to mention the rest of the world. We do get to carry guns thank goodness and some of us do want to.

Click to expand...

Exactly; a lot of people are forgetting the mass-murder at the Kosher supermarket because it was smaller or less talked-about than the mas-murder at Charlie Hebdo. While there's no consensus in the Jewish community about firearms, many of us feel that having means of self-protection for our families and communities is essential.

Come on, guys! are you really THAT surprised at the galactic stupidity of that quote, considering its source?

In looking at that video of the 2 guys shooting the wounded policeman, I can tell you that I (most of us) could have ended that whole situation with my AR.

jmace57 said:

In looking at that video of the 2 guys shooting the wounded policeman, I can tell you that I (most of us) could have ended that whole situation with my AR.

Click to expand...

The problem with that is having it handy at the time, recognizing what was happening surely-enough and quickly enough, and not being stymied by something like body armour or backup you didn't know they had.

But IF you did have a rifle handy, well, sure as heck better than not having one!

It's truly amazing the idiotic nonsense that people spew. Heck, even if that cop had a pistol, or the police in general had been armed, it would have at least changed the 'calculus' in some way.

The people at MSNBC cannot be that stupid. With all our heroes coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq it is common knowledge that it is easier to buy military equipment in the middle east than a 50lb bag of rice. Yet MSNBC thinks there are that many stupid people out there. I wouldn't say they are stupid, people just want to see violence and terrorism end so badly they will believe anything that sounds good.

I like to watch MSNBC for entertainment value and they were in Paris interviewing a French reporter. She (the Frenchwoman) said something to the effect that the French used to criticize and mock Americans because of Americans' love of guns but since this terrorist attack they are re-thinking the whole thing. "Americans can protect their families. How are we supposed to protect our families?" she asked. The MSNBC reporter was stunned and had no follow-up question.

"The problem with that is having it handy at the time, recognizing what was happening surely-enough and quickly enough, and not being stymied by something like body armour or backup you didn't know they had."

It was pretty clear what was happening by the point these guys were on their way out. I also fail to see how these issues are any different for police officers confronting the situation. Heck, for the initial bike cops, the fact the bad guys had guns stymied them utterly. It's not like city police are necessarily any more prepared than a private citizen who decides they have the opportunity and ability to actively intervene in such a scenario.

The fact private weapon holders aren't a major cause of destruction in defense situations (even when they intervene on behalf of others) is itself pretty strong evidence there is likely not near as much risk as we theorize.

----------------------

I notice a lot of you guys didn't even read the quote, much less the guy's article; he isn't saying this attack method would be worse in America because we have guns. He's saying that if America had as many of those blood-thirsty Muslims as France has, we'd be awash in slaughter by now due to everyone's ready access to means of death and dismemberment, so we'd better treat ours properly lest they go off the reservation and take our heads.

It's actually a disgracefully crude argument impugning the character of an entire class of people, themselves fairly diverse, and also self-defeating (i.e. an impossible situation) in America precisely because of the much-maligned firearms he so fears in the hands of Muslims. The fact that Americans --Muslim or otherwise-- have ready access to means of defense or resistance in this country puts a damper on just how much we seek to abuse one another, for any reason. The only areas this would not be the case, are precisely the areas where the citizens have been disarmed much like Paris.

A religious terrorist would surely meet armed response should he try violence in a great many places (sadly, not nearly enough places, though), as would a neo-Nazi or environmental terrorist. Even though there are far too many Gun Free Zones, a great many of them do have at least a few guns present in the form of armed security, which is a heck of a lot more than the Paris office building had (unarmed door guards, and unarmed first responders). The ability to hold territory of any sort is essentially made impossible, so events like the mall or hotel gunmen attacks cannot sustain themselves long enough to allow for much strategy (simultaneous or diversionary attacks, reinforcements, long term siege, or escape). Likewise, we non-Muslims in the government or at large know that at some point, we will meet with armed resistance if we injure them badly enough, or seek to annihilate them outright.

Both groups' options are thus curtailed to more peaceful means that are "likely" the correct ones for resolution. Firearms are a moderating influence, since they "correct" only the most egregious behavior --permanently. But only when distributed; when concentrated into one group, the effect is precisely the opposite. I suspect the great numbers of disarmed Muslims (or Frenchmen in general) in French ghettoes (or anywhere) experience quite a lot of this from their government due to its monopoly on power, which in turn forces some of them to extremist measures (radical Islam and police-states, respectively. Ironically, one could argue two sides of a single 12-sided dice ). Guns aren't themselves the answer, but I suspect the fear of them is both part of the problem and a symptom of the real issue.

TCB

Robinson said that the wide availability of firearms in the United States would lead to further violence in similar situations to those the French are now dealing with.

Click to expand...

Does he mean like it did after 9/11?

Maybe what they're trying to say is that it would be easier for some wacko to legally acquire a gun to do harm with (like Ft. Hood) in the U.S.

Sure, legally acquired firearms are easier to get in the U.S., but, as shown in very firearms restrictive France, 'non-legal' guns are also easy to get. So, again, if one wants a firearm to do illegal things, one can get them illegally, no matter where they are.

kwguy said:

Maybe what they're trying to say is that it would be easier for some wacko to legally acquire a gun to do harm with (like Ft. Hood) in the U.S.

Sure, legally acquired firearms are easier to get in the U.S., but, as shown in very firearms restrictive France, 'non-legal' guns are also easy to get. So, again, if one wants a firearm to do illegal things, one can get them illegally, no matter where they are.

Click to expand...

And if they are too lazy to go that route, they break a window, hot wire a crown vic or a caprice classic and drive it full speed through manhattan, chicago, nashville....insert city here...insert amusement park here...insert county fair here........

Eugene Robinson. That's all you need to know. The most leftist , hoplophobic columnist in America. Or anywhere. The man is a Socialistic delusional dingbat.

Pay no attention. He left the real world at least 15 years ago.

While I am more happy this happened in France, rather than the United States, this does not mean I am happy it happened. Just the further it is further from me or my loved ones, the less unhappy I am.

Nobody at the scene of the terrorist acts was armed, including apparently the police.
Not likely in many, if not most areas of the United States.

Despite the differences in gun laws, it is probably easier to get fully automatic weapons in France or the other European Nations, than it is in the U. S., simply because of the open borders between Nations there, and the physical proximity of failed or Islamic states to the more civilized Western States.

And if they are too lazy to go that route, they break a window, hot wire a crown vic or a caprice classic and drive it full speed through manhattan, chicago, nashville....insert city here...insert amusement park here...insert county fair here........

Click to expand...

Exactly. Some people want to make this about guns. It's not. It's about murderers being murderers, and they'll use whatever tools they can.

"Robinson said that the wide availability of firearms in the United States would lead to further violence in similar situations to those the French are now dealing with."
"Does he mean like it did after 9/11?"

To be fair, it kinda did. American Muslims did meet with limited reprisals in some areas after those attacks, as surely some French Muslims will as well (likely more so, since riotous behavior always seems to have more 'legs' in European cities full of jobless, bored yoots, despite our own cities not being much better off, many times).

I think that's his actual point, poorly articulated; that the seething animosity built up in France, transplanted to the US, would turn into open warfare...because guns. But fortunately, neither it, nor the terrorism it grew from is here in any great significance, so at present said open warfare is a low likelihood. What Mr. Robinson is forgetting is there has to be a reason for this, or it would be the case already. But, like many of his ilk, he didn't think very hard when crafting arguments, so he's left assuming our circumstances are different basically because our circumstances are different. Mutual threat of lethal force (or to be more specific, mutual threat of lethal force in defense) and adequate representation* --which has much the same effect as force deterrent but in politics-- has tempered all sides of this issue in America, so even in the few places where Muslim immigrants have congregated to form a large bloc of the population, tensions are far more reasonable than we see in France.

TCB

*Also a huge issue in France, I'm sure, but far beyond the scope of this forum