Gun Control Forum on Facebook Gun Control Forum on Google Plus Gun Control Forum on Twitter

Greetings Gun Control Debater

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

Popular Gun Control Forum Categories

In this Discussion

Paris

edited December 2015 in Gun Control Debates Posts: 21
I'm sure we're all savvy to the horrible terrorist attacks in Paris within the last few days. There are people who are saying it would have had a different outcome if the citizens, even a few, had been armed. I definitely agree. Is there any reason to suggest that an armed good guy would NOT have made a difference in the amount of carnage that resulted from the attack? Let's hear it.
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • Posts: 234
    I thing the threat of terrorism is just another reason for the law abiding public to be armed for self defense.With the Muslim leaders even asking the ones in our country to strike back against us.I think it is just a matter of time before this widens and spreads,look at the terrorist attacks there have been in New York already sense 9/11.I know there will be the ones that just think we are being paranoid, but being prepared is not being paranoid.
  • Law abiding citizens are not the ones we see on the news having gun problems. There are exceptions like the recent road rage gun toting fool who killed the innocent child. But if good citizens are armed it does more than just carrying a gun about. Back in the old days people knew about collective responsibility for a better society. Kids knew neighbors were part of the deal in raising them up. Schools and churches got involved to make communities stronger. It didn't even need much government input because people just knew everyone would be taking care of the safety of everyone else.

    The Paris episode took people by surprise and it was very unfortunate that the terrorists were able to kill so many innocent, including youth. I'm not sure if more law abiding people had guns if it would work out differently. There's a good chance. I do know that some innocent Arab or Muslim people might have gotten shot too just because of stereotype and we can't take chances. It's a good question. I will come back to check for a good answer.
  • I think that maybe it would have resulted in fewer deaths...but not by much. These attacks took people by surprise.  There was just not enough time to prepare a gun to defend yourself.  Responsible gun owners have their guns on safety.  The second one of the terrorists saw a person grab their gun, they would have automatically been the next to die.  I believe in the right to be armed, I just don't think it would have helped in this case.

  • Posts: 234
    I think it is hard to speculate whether it would have made a difference, but I do know if we don't at least try and be prepared and try we will never know.If we are not willing to fight for ourselves, why should we expect someone else to do it for us.If they know we are willing and will be armed then we may reduce the element of surprise, just like with the criminals.If I am going to die I would rather at least try then stand there with a thumb up my butt.
    TommiGunn31
  • I agree.  Like I said, I am for gun ownership.  Also, fighting back is a deterrent in and of itself.  Most bullies (which, at their core, is what all terrorists are) enjoy picking on weak people who can't or won't try to defend themselves.  I just don't agree that it will stop all terrorists or have saved all of those people.  But the few that it would have saved would have made a huge difference to those who would have welcomed them home.
  • Posts: 21
    I'm sorry I just can't wrap myself around in order to take down violence we should be armed.  I feel like we want to go back to an old west philosophy where it didn't matter if you shot someone down in the street.  Where would humanity be then.  I'm sorry, but I don't think anything could of helped with the terrorist attack.  It happened by surprise and out of nowhere.  I just don't think we should walk around carrying guns looking for a fight, and that is how I feel this could go down.
  • Posts: 21
    pafjlh,  I understand your point of view, I really do. I am not advocating vigilanteism. Maybe an armed citizenry would not have made a difference in Paris, maybe it would. We'll never know. However it would probably make a huge difference in some of the things we have to deal with, school shootings, etc. If citizens are disarmed, they are at the mercy of criminals, AND a corrupt government. I can't wrap my head around that.
  • Posts: 234
    I don't think being armed and protected is not out looking for a fight or trouble, that is what the terrorist and criminals are doing.You try and be prepared for other things in your life or at least I hope you do, so why not being prepared to defend yourself. I don't understand it seems to be alright for a criminal or terrorist not to value life, but it is wrong for us to value our own lives, we are suppose to set back and let happen what will happen to us and deal with it later instead of dealing with it at the time. It takes more then just feeling sorry for someone after something happens, we owe it to ourselves and others to help prevent it from happening.
  • Posts: 49
    Shoulda, woulda, couldas and a buck might get you a cup of coffee.  While I am pretty sure that a number of armed citizens who TRAINED REGULARLY might have lessened the carnage, it's still all speculation.  
  • Posts: 234
    I do think we know one thing for sure being unarmed sure did no good.I will take my change at being armed.
  • pafjlh, I honestly don't think that armed citizens are all looking for fights. I am perfectly okay with law-abiding citizens have guns, despite not owning one myself.  The ones I worry about are the ones who already don't listen to the laws.  If people don't have guns, they will just use other weapons.  There were plenty of serial killers who didn't use guns.  Some used knives.  Some used their bare hands.  I have been the victim of gun violence, however, I have learned that there are many responsible people who own guns, as well.  People who are trained to use guns but pray that they never have to. 
  • Posts: 234
    I have had run ins with idiots with guns before too, and with me having my own gun deterred any further violence with no one getting hurt and I am sure I am not the only one that has had this kind of experience. It doesn't always have turn out bad when you use your head and are responsible, but those things never hardly make it to the media.There not gruesome so it isn't news worthy.
  • I think that the issue would then be that most of them would not have been armed at the time. Why would they be? Look at where they were. They were in restaurants, in a concert, and in a stadium for a game. I don't think that if they owned guns they would have had them with them. Therefore, I don't think it would have helped. 
  • Posts: 234
    If they were allowed to conceal carry and didn't have our foolish gun free zones and places to hang a stupid sign saying no guns allowed they would have been armed because that is what you have a concealed permit for.We will never know because of there strict gun laws and no trust of their law abiding public.Trust works both ways when the governments don't trust their public then why should the public trust the governments.It is easy to deny a theory when it has never been given a chance to be proved or not.
  • Posts: 49
    @nailah783 you'd be amazed at how many people you see in restaurants, concerts, etc. are carrying firearms.  The problem in Paris and France in general is that people are for the most part not allowed to carry.   

    This notion that you can predict when trouble might occur and gear up accordingly usually gets people killed or hurt in unpredictable places. 
  • I just don't know if they would have been able to draw their guns fast enough. Like nailah said, they were going to a public place where they didn't expect it.  It was a horrible tragedy.  I don't think it could've been avoided. Minimized, perhaps, but not completely avoided.

  • Posts: 234
    Nothing may never be avoided completely but if it could have saved even one life it is worth it.It is also part of conceal carry training to always be aware of something to happen and to know when and if you should try and do something.I don't think many realize what all goes along with the training and responsibility that goes with concealed carry it is a lot more then just strapping on a gun and hit the streets.
  • I'm not saying that citizens shouldn't be armed or "you can't save everyone so don't try".  I'm just saying that some people are saying that it may not have changed the outcome.  If it did, it may not have changed it very drastically.  Don't get me wrong, even saving one life is great.  To me, every life matters.  However, these aren't just bullies like we see on American streets who are afraid to die.  These men would not be deterred by the mere sight of a gun.  They are prepared to die.  They WANT to die.  Using a gun in practice is much different from an emergency situation. Innocent people would still be killed.  It really doesn't matter how well-trained you are if an innocent who is panicking runs in front of you while you are pulling the trigger.  THIS IS BY NO MEANS ME SAYING THIS TO GET GUNS BANNED.  I am just saying that people may not end up being saved just by people having guns.  We have to teach others how to keep their heads in a bad situation, as well.  Terrorists feed off of fear.  If we don't give them that, then we take away their motivation. 
  • Just another false flag to push gun control. And now there's another one happening in CA. One of these days the president's just going to announce nobody's allowed to own guns anymore. It's all part of the agenda.

    jbbarn
  • What is a false flag?
  • Posts: 21
     That is exactly what the liberals are pushing for. If and when it happens, I hope we the people will kick this "president" out on his arse, and send him packing to wherever he came from!
  • Posts: 234
    I think a false flag can mean different things to different people,but basically what I consider is a false flag is when they try and lie about something and say it is better for you when it isn't to try and get something done that's actually wrong but promoting that is right under false pretense.If that make any sense to you.There are many that think we deserve the terrorism that we caused it.This is not true no one deserves terrorism,I mean war is war but terrorism is just for hate of someone because they can,it's like bullying times a thousand.You are right most terrorist don't care if they die or even plan on it it seems to be part of their teaching and religion,but we still need to try and survive at any cost also.I think to try and make us stop the fight is wrong with any gun control or attempt to disarm us.
  • I phrased that incorrectly.  I mean "what were you saying is a false flag?"  I knew the meaning of the word. 
  • In my opinion, it wouldn't really have mattered. Most of the terrorists(at least one's we've seen in the last 10 years or so) have been ready to lay down their own lives to finish what they came there to do. They're ready to die by the bullet of someone else's gun, if it means they still had a hand in what they thought was the right thing to do in their own views. 
    Maybe if someone had a gun it may have killed a few of the terrorists before they could kill some of the other people, but it wouldn't have made much of a difference at all, and I highly doubt it would have deterred them in the Paris attacks in particular. If anything, It's possible that the situation could actually have down more of putting a target on the gun owners back, rather than causing them to flee. 
    TommiGunn31
  • I agree with you, Maelalove.  I don't think that the terrorist would have run away.  Like you said, they are trained to die, therefore they don't fear it.  I also agree that the sight of a gun would have drawn fire, as they would want to get rid of the threat toward their goal.  However, this, too, may have saved lives, as (even if it were just a few) people might have been able to escape.  I think no matter what, this post is moot, as the lives have already been lost.
  • You're right, it could have distracted them for long enough for a few people to escape. But at the same time, that's still pretty variable. If someone fought back, there's the chance that a few others would try to stand up and fight and also get caught in the crosshairs. We have no real way of knowing what would have changed. Plus, the butterfly effect comes in full force with this. Just cause it could change one way, doesn't mean it's changed for the best, either.
  • I completely agree.  It is all just speculation at this point.  We have no idea what could've happened.  I think this whole post just went in a direction that actually took the blame and focus off of the terrorists and got us fighting (again) about our personal gun beliefs.
    Thanked by 1John
  • I wouldn't call it fighting, honestly. I'm not reading anything in hostility and do hope that I haven't offended anyone. I do feel like this post should be more about the terrorists than it became. I guess we'll have to see how it goes. If they target anywhere in the U.S. they have to be incredibly careful here. As obvious to all of us on this forum, people in the U.S. sure like their guns and their freedom. ;]
  • "I think that maybe it would have resulted in fewer deaths...but not by much. These attacks took people by surprise. There was just not enough time to prepare a gun to defend yourself. Responsible gun owners have their guns on safety. The second one of the terrorists saw a person grab their gun, they would have automatically been the next to die. I believe in the right to be armed, I just don't think it would have helped in this case."

    With all due respect, you are wrong, no fault of your own really, you do not have guns and are unfamiliar with their utility, I know for a fact, one or two armed people could have prevented those deaths, now remember the 3 men on that train in france, they were unarmed and took care of a man with an AK-47 ? those men received medals for heroism, truth is, armed people often prevent mass killings, yes, I may get shot defending someone, and yet, when I did, I was not killed, and I was successful.
    Never underestimate the value of the armed citizen in defending others.
    Most terrorists are craven cowards and even though they are prepared to die, they do think twice about attacking if there is a chance they will die without achievement of their nefarious goals.
  • "TommiGunn31
    December 2015 Posts: 246Thanks
    I completely agree. It is all just speculation at this point. We have no idea what could've happened. I think this whole post just went in a direction that actually took the blame and focus off of the terrorists and got us fighting (again) about our personal gun beliefs."

    I hope I have not seemed to have been fighting you, if I have, I apologize sincerely. I think you are a very good person and only hope one day you can take some classes, even if you don't own guns, a concealed carry license is a great thing as well as training and range practice in case you ever decide otherwise.
Sign In or Register to comment.