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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm fascinated.
Why would you say such a thing?

If I'm in a large crowd of people and suddenly I hear gunfire and explosions and then I spot someone with a gun who isn't in uniform I'm going to think that he's the one shooting and there's a good possibility I'm going to shoot him. How am I to know if he's the terrorist or someone trying to take out the terrorist?

Then consider that most people who CC are woefully undertrained. They barely keep their rounds on a stationary paper target never mind taking a high stress shot in a crowd of jostling people with a pocket pistol that gets fired only every now and again.

My reaction (I hope) would be to move away from the gunfire as fast as possible and find a place where I can get some cover and keep my back to the wall. If I'm approached there by someone with a weapon I'm in a much better position to take him out with the least amount of risk to myself or others.

This isn't a scenario like a school shooting where an armed teacher barricades him/herself in a classroom and blasts the shooter as he tries to force his way in. I can support that. It someone with a pocket pistol and nominal training stands a decent chance.

My job is to keep me and my family alive. I'm not going to play hero by engaging an unknown number of terrorists in a panic stricken mob.
 
Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Pretty freaking sad. Supposed pro 2nd Amendment folks who actually think that having armed potential victims would either do zero good or would make things worst in a mass shooter scenario. Un-freaking-believable. You people need to turn in your guns.

If you are pro 2A, which from your comments I assume you are, you need to present the entirety of the purpose of 2A and not just a part of it. The people who wrote 2A actually had a purpose in mind when they wrote it and it wasn't just a declaration that everyone should be armed. There's a little more to it than that. In 2A you will find the words "well regulated".

While few of us like to think in these terms, the Founders were adamant that the citizens retain not just weapons of contemporary utility, but the ability to use these weapons effectively in defense of the nation from both internal and external threats. Put another way, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is conjoined with the responsibility to use those arms effectively, and the Founders wanted us to be able to serve in militias… which they studiously avoided defining

http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/2/

How many gun owners do you know who train? Personally I would say about 20% and I know a lot of gun owners.

I'm one that believes that unless you train you don't really have any business owning a gun. Maybe that comes from my military training.
 
Last edited:
Lots of circular talk here.

Would armed citizens have made any difference?

I don't know, but I do know that thinking along these lines was a seriously considered issue when deciding to carry personally.

In other words, my carrying may influence how I die not whether I die.
 
Training does not guarantee one will do the right things when poop hits the fan...I base this on some experiences I've had.
 
If I'm in a large crowd of people and suddenly I hear gunfire and explosions and then I spot someone
with a gun who isn't in uniform I'm going to think that he's the one shooting and there's a good possibility
I'm going to shoot him. How am I to know if he's the terrorist or someone trying to take out the terrorist?
So we do nothing ?
and wait for "legitimate authority" ?

Maybe at one time, my friend.
Not any more

Potential friendly fire is always a possibility,
but to wait -- in this day & age -- is to die.
 
Jeff White said:
No there isn't much traffic here. By and large the membership doesn't want to talk about serious subjects in a serious manner. For instance, as I type this post, this thread has 113 posts and 732 views. It's an opinion piece that doesn't really fit in Strategies and Tactics and as we know, everyone has an opinion on this subject.

I suspect the high number of posts here has something to do with the emergence of pride. There's a lot of pride and ego being tossed around in this discussion, which is prompting many to keep responding. After this one, I'll stop contributing to that.

Nom de Forum said:
Why is it so many people posting to this thread and the other thread think I am against armed civilians taking action? I have never written that and have in fact written that as an armed civilian I would take action no matter how bad the odds of significantly reducing the number of civilian casualties caused by the terrorists. From the very beginning of this discussion I have merely stated that armed civilians will not make a significant difference in the outcome and that the priority of effort to prevent casualties from terrorist attacks should be to use good intelligence collection and analysis to enable preemptive action by the police and military.

Obviously, preemptive efforts by professional security forces makes a huge difference. Even for the one attack that gets through, they prevent countless others.

But you've also said that by resisting, you'd probably only push the terrorists to kill faster.
So resisting won't make a postive difference (according to you), it will only probably make things worse, but you'd plan to do that anyhow?
 
At what point in a terrorist attack do the terrorists commit suicide? I know it is different with highly trained people like the guys in Paris when compared to Sandy Hook but it seems to me that they generally opt out when they feel that they no longer have the upper hand and they do not want to be captured alive.
Would several people with CCW's move that time up by a few minutes?
I have no confidence that 100's of people with 380's would make the situation better because of all the "friendly fire" that might occur but I do think that victims shooting back would accelerate the decision to opt out. These guys are generally wanting to create terror, how many people ultimately die is not their main concern. Proving they can create havoc in every day situations is their main goal.
 
Quote:
If I'm in a large crowd of people and suddenly I hear gunfire and explosions and then I spot someone
with a gun who isn't in uniform I'm going to think that he's the one shooting and there's a good possibility
I'm going to shoot him. How am I to know if he's the terrorist or someone trying to take out the terrorist?
So we do nothing ?
and wait for "legitimate authority" ?

Maybe at one time, my friend.
Not any more

Potential friendly fire is always a possibility,
but to wait -- in this day & age -- is to die.

Agree, we are not talking about a 7-11 robbery, we are talking about a Mumbai/Beslan terrorist attack in which there will be collateral damage no matter who is doing the shooting. I believe the times are changing and while the rest of the world is largely unarmed in comparison to the US, the day will come (unless we are also disarmed) when citizens may well be called upon to make a difference just like in the jet over Pennsylvania.
I don't view that as "Walter Mitty Fantasy" but simply realizing that the paradigm has changed and is changing.
 
shafter said:
If I'm in a large crowd of people and suddenly I hear gunfire and explosions and then I spot someone with a gun who isn't in uniform I'm going to think that he's the one shooting and there's a good possibility I'm going to shoot him. How am I to know if he's the terrorist or someone trying to take out the terrorist?
I think if you take just a moment to reflect on the situation you're imagining, you'll see the answer straight away.


How do you know whether the guy you see with a gun is a terrorist or a responding citizen, undercover cop, off-duty military person, etc? Simple. Observe what s/he is DOING.

Is this person firing a weapon randomly into a crowd? Is he stalking down and executing people cowering on the floor? Is this person causing the death, destruction, and panic that's happening? Is this person communicating and working with others who are also shooting fleeing people?

Or is this person holding fire, facing the source of violence, taking cover, angling for a clean shot, NOT shooting random people around them?

It would seem that it could hardly take more than a second or two's observation for any rational person to determine, with a very high degree of certainty, whether the armed person they're looking at is a murderous terrorist or a brave responder.





(Now, I understand this might be difficult if you happen to be the sort of hunter who goes out for deer and bags the neighbor's dairy cow. A man's got to know his limitations.)
 
Since this forum is devoted to discussing Strategies and Tactics I would like to offer some points for consideration.

In the interest of full discourse let me begin that I totally reject the concept that has been discussed so far that armed resistance would not have “statistically significantly” (whatever that yet undefined number is) reduced the number of people that were killed and wounded.

My first point is “JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD.”

The attack began by the attackers using firearms to spray bullets into the crowd primarily for the purpose of subduing the people attending the concert into offering no resistance and not attempting to escape.

The second reason for firing into the crowd was for the purpose of killing people.

When the attackers began spraying bullets the best tactic would be to seek cover rather than to engage in a gunfight. Going up against attackers armed and shooting is very poor odds.

My second point is “JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE TAKEN HOSTAGE DOESN’T MEAN OTHER OPPORTUNITIES WILL NOT ARISE LATER TO ATTACK.”

With a small group of attackers and a large number of hostages it was impossible for the terrorists to search everyone. Women could have had their purses taken from them but there are no reports of the hostages being body searched. So it is probable that if there were hostages carrying concealed weapons they would have been able to retain their guns unknown to the terrorists.

My third point is after the initial attack “THERE IS TIME TO FORM A COUNTERATTACK PLAN.”

Once the shooting stop and the hostages gathered together there was time to form some type of counterattack. In the case of having a firearm that could be as simple as waiting for a terrorist coming for a hostage (there are reports of the terrorists executing some hostages) and, as Gomer Pyle would put it “Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!”

My fourth point is “UNEXPECTED RESISTANCE CAN SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE TERRORISTS PLAN.”

The entire plan was based on the knowledge that the victims would be unarmed and could be easily captured and subdued by use of firearms. Once that was accomplished the terrorists concern about possible actions of the hostages was reduced as they moved into the next phases of their attack plan.

If only one of the terrorists could have neutralized that would have reduced the number bombs they had. It would also presented a opportunity for escape.

My final point is “EVEN YOU DIE IN TRYING IT MAY REDUCED THE NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE KILLED.”

Remember the passengers on Flight 93. They died trying to overcome the terrorists but in doing so saved more lives on the ground.
 
This post is similar to BSA1's

It is defeatism to argue that nothing can be done by ordinary citizens, even untrained or barely trained ones, because that premise has been proven false through specific actions in the past--including defeating suicide bombers. Every attack and defense has an achilles heel.

Whether armed citizen action would have made a difference in these particular cases of the Paris attacks is something no one on this board without omniscience can prove.

Self-defense in these cases are both individual and collective in nature. Think of the Titanic--would you give your seat up on a lifeboat for a woman or child or would you claim that responsibility to your own family means that you take that seat as opposed to giving it to a stranger to whom you owe nothing. Apply it to this situation, collectively, we are better off with armed citizen resistance which increases the complexity of the tactics and decision making for terrorists but the outcome can be bad for the individual.

But, if you are that armed individual citizen at the time with the opportunity to act, it may not end well for you to undertake some resistance. However, if everyone acts that way then it is no different than if everyone is unarmed though. How would you feel if someone armed left you to die in order to save their own life through escape and evasion denied to you. The moral complexity of this question means that people will come to different answers just as it has always been.
 
It's time we stop talking in generalities and start talking specifics

krimmie said;
Training does not guarantee one will do the right things when poop hits the fan...I base this on some experiences I've had.

Then obviously we should stop training. It's a waste of time and money right? :uhoh:

I don't recall anyone saying that training guaranteed any outcome. But in my experience, people who have trained perform better under stress then those that haven't. Still it's not a guarantee, after all, poorly trained illiterates with 50 year old AKs manage to kill some of the most highly trained soldiers in the world.


I remain fascinated with the assumption that the CCW'r would have had to kill all three battle-rifle wielding jahadists.

He/She/They only have to get one -- thereby getting his rifle -- and change the game thereafter.

I remain fascinated by the out and out speculation, by people who weren't there and have very little idea of what transpired as to what could have been accomplished. Do you think our hero could have just walked up to the Jihadi and said; "Hey mack, got a light?" and when the Jihadi reached for his lighter our hero shoots him in the face, grabs his AK as he falls, flips the selector all the way down to semi and fires two quick hammers, one to the brainpan of each of the other living terrorists. The whole thing takes 4.2 seconds and our hero gets the Croix de Guerre, France adopts mandatory open carry as it hands out surplus MAT 49 submachine guns out of war reserve stocks to anyone who wants one....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Perhaps we should actually look at what's known about the attack:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...clan-concert-hall-without-second-thought.html

Dressed in black, their faces unmasked, the terrorists had screeched up in a black car, and sprayed the adjacent cafe with bullets before bursting into the concert hall.

Among the first to die were those standing closest to the front doors and drinking at the bar. Within seconds, the cracks grew louder and more sustained echoing around the hall with hysterical squeals, and bullet-ridden people began collapsing like dominoes.


However, the hall is quite small, and many of the 1,500 fans were huddled together so tightly that those who were shot didn’t hit the ground at first. Instead, they fell, writhing, against those beside them, drenching them in blood.

So people were packed so tightly into the concert hall that it was nearly impossible to move. How are you going to get out of the crowd and close enough to one of the gunmen to take his AK?

‘Allahu Akbar!’ the terrorists bellowed: a cry that is supposed to glorify the Almighty but has become a mantra for murder. ‘This is for Syria!’ shouted one in flawless French. ‘It’s Hollande’s fault.’ Now it was horribly clear who these men were and what they had come for.

As the militarily organized terrorists took up their positions — one standing sentry in the pillared balcony, others remaining below to pick out the first targets (illuminated by the bright overhead lights) — people fell to the floor.

So you've got one terrorist in an overwatch position above the crowd and two on the ground. That is going to make any movement just a bit problematic, don't you think?

Among the victims was Nick Alexander, 36, a gentle, bearded man from Colchester, much loved on the heavy metal rock circuit, who made his living selling posters and T-shirts. He was there with his American former girlfriend, Helen Wilson, who was shot in both thighs, but lived. ‘It was mayhem,’ she said from her hospital bed.

‘When anyone started running they would shoot them, so we got down on the floor. They machine-gunned everybody.’

Ok, you're standing in that tightly packed crowd and anyone moving out of position is being shot. What's your plan? How are you going to get that rifle and change things?

The random slaughter was to go on intermittently for two hours and 40 minutes. Helen described how the killers chillingly dispatched disabled fans, who were seated in a special area with the best view of the stage. ‘They went into the back room where there were people in wheelchairs and they just started shooting them,’ she said.

Might have been an opening to take some kind of action there, but you still have the Terr standing overwatch in the balcony to contend with.

Two Scottish friends at the concert as a joint birthday celebration managed to sneak down into the cellar below the hall and hide there with some Italian men, listening to the terrible events unfolding above them.

John Leader, an expat Australian, had taken his 12-year-old son Oscar to see his favourite band.

He describes hearing the ‘firecracker’ sound, then feeling the ‘whistle’ of a bullet go past his ear.

‘One of the gunmen was surveilling the crowd while the other was shooting on it,’ he said. ‘People in their sights had no chance of surviving. There was no chance of being a hero because these guys were very organised.’ At one point in the chaos, he said, he became separated from his son and began shouting for him frantically, oblivious to the risk of drawing attention to himself.

So they were methodically picking their targets.

Mercifully, they were reunited; though someone beside Oscar was shot dead and, speaking to CNN, the young boy recalled his distress at being forced to lay next to a corpse — the first he has ever seen in his tender years.

It offered a glimpse of what it must have been like to be in that concert hall, as the seconds and minutes went by and the assassins went about their evil work.

Yet perhaps the most graphic and chilling first-hand description comes from a nameless survivor who penned his account online, a few hours after escaping.

Having thrown himself to the floor as the shooting began, he describes people’s agony as they lay — for almost three hours, let us not forget — ‘on top of each other in contrived, painful positions, face on the ground, head resting on whatever, a leg for example, all on top of a bloodbath.’ Cramped in this grotesque position, he then played out the ‘worst game I have ever played’ — silently holding his breath and remaining motionless and hoping against hope that he wouldn’t be the next one to die.

Praying he could hold out until help came.

‘PLEASE SHOOT THEM... NOT ME’

Periodically, he says, the awful silence was punctuated by gunfire — not in time, with no logic.

‘Nothing. Just gunfire now and again. And we asked ourselves if the next bullet was for us . . . waiting for the police to arrive without any notion of time (I couldn’t get to my phone), feeling people getting up, to suddenly getting shot down. Again . . . and again.’

People were so closely entwined that it was as if they were ‘inter-woven together’.

When someone began to cry, others begged them to hush. ‘Every muscle was numb,’ and it was impossible even to raise one’s head and see what was happening elsewhere in the hall without drawing the gunmen’s attention. ‘So we waited, as if playing lottery with the terrorists,’ the survivor went on. ‘You have these awful thoughts, such as: “I beg, please not me . . . aim at the other side of the hall.”

‘These thoughts are interrupted by gunfire.’

At one point he felt the jolt of a huge explosion — the sound of a grenade being hurled into the pit near the stage, someone later told him. As the noise subsided, people began panicking and writhing, and phones began ringing, bringing more shots and heightening the sense of fear.

Ok, there you are, in the center of the floor, packed into the crowd so tightly that people who are being shot are falling into the people next to them. You are dressed for a rock concert and you have nothing more then your everyday carry.

Tell me how you make a difference. ME, please tell me how you are going to get a rifle, which terrorist you are going to take it from and what you are going to do with it to radically change the game.

Anyone else is free to weigh in on how you are going to solve this problem.

There it is, eyewitness reports from inside the theater. What are you going to do?

The earlier discussion of if it will or no it won't is hereby terminated. I will delete any posts that don't address your specific actions in this exact situation.

Perhaps then we can decide what difference CCW would have made.
 
Ok, there you are, in the center of the floor, packed into the crowd so tightly
that people who are being shot are falling into the people next to them. You are
dressed for a rock concert and you have nothing more then your everyday carry.

Tell me how you make a difference. ME, please tell me how you are going to get a rifle,
which terrorist you are going to take it from and what you are going to do with it to
radically change the game.
Well... Gee, Jeff
I guess you're right.
I should just resign myself to dying...
...like all those rabbits up against the fence in my nightmares.

Ain't gonna happen.
At least not that way.
Not by conscious choice.
 
Ain't gonna happen.
At least not that way.
Not by conscious choice

That's not an answer ME. I posted the survivors accounts because this is the S&T forum and I'm tired of watching this circular conversation spin but not go anywhere.

I am honestly interested in what you and the rest of the participants would do under those exact conditions.

What's your conscious choice?
 
Jeff White said:
Ok, there you are, in the center of the floor, packed into the crowd so tightly that people who are being shot are falling into the people next to them. You are dressed for a rock concert and you have nothing more then your everyday carry.

Tell me how you make a difference. ME, please tell me how you are going to get a rifle, which terrorist you are going to take it from and what you are going to do with it to radically change the game.

It's hard to say anything specific because the smoke has barely cleared. Every single word typed here by any of us is conjecture based as much on what we imagine happened or would happen. Quite frankly, I don't think we can even imagine what that must have been like. You know that too. If you're looking for facts, you might as well delete the whole thread.

But In the situation you describe, do you honestly think you'd just stand there with a loaded Glock on your hip and do nothing?
If you do, why train or carry at all?
 
If you're looking for facts, you might as well delete the whole thread.

What I posted are the closest to facts we have at this point. Eyewitness accounts are usually unreliable, but I think we can take some facts from that article:

The place was packed, there was little room to move.

There were three terrorists armed with AKs and one took up an overwatch position in the balcony.

The terrorists fired randomly into the crowd and selected individual targets.

But In the situation you describe, do you honestly think you'd just stand there with a loaded Glock on your hip and do nothing?

I don't know what I'd do in that situation. I read the article with the eyewitness accounts as I posted it here. I'm not certain that shooting at the terrs from the crowd would be a good idea because packed that tightly any return fire directed at you could hit others.....I don't know, it's a tough problem. If I'm there with loved ones we are probably slowly moving towards either an exit or cover, perhaps crawling on the floor between and around people's legs. If I am there alone I might take other action. It's a very tough problem.
 
But you've also said that by resisting, you'd probably only push the terrorists to kill faster.
So resisting won't make a postive difference (according to you), it will only probably make things worse, but you'd plan to do that anyhow?

What I was attempting to convey is the mere act of resisting does not necessarily greatly increase the likelihood of a more positive outcome. Since not resisting at all does nothing to increase the odds of a more positive outcome I would rather accept the low odds of creating a more positive outcome. Sure odds of 1 in a 1,000,000 are better than 0 in a 1,000,000 but still unlikely result in a significant difference in outcome. Do you see the nuance now?
 
Jeff - The witnesses themselves - concert attendees - aren't you. There's a certain mindset that evolves when you're trained to use a weapon. Civilian with a CCW or an off-duty cop - some of us are trained not only to use a weapon but to see resistance as a realistic option. I'm not criticizing them - no one deserves to be murdered by an extremist just for going to a concert. But the people who were there might not have seen the situation the same way you'd have seen it.

You're right - it is a very tough situation and I have no right to judge anyone on it, so I won't. But if we think all our training and efforts aren't worth anything on our worst day when we'd need it the most, then what's the point of any of it?
 
Last edited:
What's your conscious choice?
Conscious choice is that you do not voluntarily give up the means to take
on the terrorist, and instead simply hope to find safety in numbers
(i.e., the "flock' defense)

Conscious choice is that you escape if you can, but maintain the means
to enforce that escape if you must.

Conscious choice is that you always look to offensive options -- even while
in escape mode.

Conscious choice is that you have actually thought through your potential
actions should the worst happen-- and are mentally prepared to execute them
w/o hand-wringing "what-if" delays.

Some on this forum have actually had background wherein these conscious choices
-- and turn to the sudden initiative -- have saved a bad situation from going worse.




and finally.... I simply cannot fathom how an conscious choice to adopt the philosophy that you cannot possibly make a difference -- so why bother -- is in one's interest.
 
It's time we stop talking in generalities and start talking specifics

Jeff here is a response to your demand for talk of specifics.

If close enough (less than 6 feet) to physically grapple with a terrorist before his muzzle is pointed at me I would attack with intent to disable and disarm.

If close enough (probably less than 15 feet) for me to deliver very accurate pistol fire at the terrorists with little risk of hitting civilians I would immediately draw and fire.

If farther away from the terrorist than the distance mentioned above I would seek cover and flee the area if possible. If cover is the only option I would engage the terrorist with my pistol if a clear target presented itself that was in range of my level of skill to hit. If only concealment was available I would remain concealed and not fire until detected.

In all these situations I believe I am more likely to be killed than survive and that it is very unlikely my actions will significantly reduce civilian casualties. That does not me I would not try to use my pistol. I would chose to accept slim odds of success over the no odds of success if no resistance is given.
 
I simply cannot fathom how an conscious choice to adopt the philosophy that you cannot possibly make a difference -- so why bother -- is in one's interest.

There is quite a bit of difference in not believing "you cannot possibly make a difference" and acknowledging you probably cannot. I submit the person who still acts even with the belief of the latter is far more courageous than the person who acts because they believe the former.
 
Jeff here is a response to your demand for talk of specifics.

The thread had reached the point where it was either change direction or close it. Neither side was convincing anyone on the other side of the issue it had devolved into a long circular discussion.

I think that the actual details of the problem a CCW holder would have faced in that theater was a better way to take the thread. It's somewhat easier to set emotion aside when you look at the specifics involved.

You are the OP if you want me to close it I will.
 
The thread had reached the point where it was either change direction or close it. Neither side was convincing anyone on the other side of the issue it had devolved into a long circular discussion.

I think that the actual details of the problem a CCW holder would have faced in that theater was a better way to take the thread. It's somewhat easier to set emotion aside when you look at the specifics involved.

You are the OP if you want me to close it I will.

Jeff I am not the O.P. Moderator hso created this thread with my posts from another thread without my knowledge. Perhaps you should be asking him about closure. I see there is now a third similar thread now running in general discussion so I hope you and hso will agree to close this thread.
 
I remain fascinated with the assumption that the CCW'r would have had to kill all three battle-rifle wielding jahadists.

He/She/They only have to get one -- thereby getting his rifle -- and change the game thereafter.

What are the other two terrorists doing while the CCW'r is getting the first one's rifle?
 
This isn't a scenario like a school shooting where an armed teacher barricades him/herself in a classroom and blasts the shooter as he tries to force his way in. I can support that. It someone with a pocket pistol and nominal training stands a decent chance.

Agree on this point, I tried to say the same thing earlier (or maybe that was a different thread) that a crowded theater with multiple trained terrorists is a way different scenario than a small Bible study class where a lone wolf with probably minimal competence bursts in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top